ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
International Labour Conference

86th Session
Geneva, June 1998

 

Report of the Committee on the Declaration of Principles

Discussion in Plenary
Declaration

Contents

Note: A number of opinions were expressed by the Legal Adviser in the course of the discussion. They may be found in the present report at the following paragraphs: 71, 72, 73, 74, 78, 79, 80, 133, 148, 152, 157, 167, 177, 179, 180, 182, 202, 219, 225, 230, 233, 284, 325, 357 and 362.

1. The Committee on the Declaration of Principles was set up by the Conference at its first sitting on 2 June 1998 to consider the seventh item on the agenda, the consideration of a possible Declaration of Principles of the International Labour Organization concerning fundamental rights and its appropriate follow-up mechanisms.

2. At its first sitting, the Committee was composed of 189 members (96 Government members, 34 Employer members and 56 Worker members). To achieve equality of voting strength, each Government member with the right to vote was allotted 119 votes, each Employer member 336 votes and each Worker member 204 votes. The composition of the Committee was modified seven times during the session and the number of votes attributed to each Member was adjusted accordingly.(1) 

3. The Committee held 21 sittings.

4. The Committee elected the following Officers:
 

Chairperson/Reporter:

Mr. M. Moher (Government member, Canada);

Vice-Chairpersons:

Mr. E. Potter (Employer member, United States);

 

Mr. W. Brett (Worker member, United Kingdom).

5. Following the election of the Officers, the Government member of Japan, on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group of governments, noted that the composition of the Officers of the Committee did not reflect the geographical distribution nor the different levels of economic development of the countries represented in the Committee, but his group did not challenge the composition and recognized that the non-governmental groups were quite autonomous. In pledging the support of his group to the work of the Committee, he hoped that the Committee would make all the necessary efforts to address the concerns of this group, and to ensure that its views were reflected, with a view to achieving the necessary consensus. The Chair assured him that his concerns had been carefully noted.

I. General discussion

6. The representative of the Secretary-General reminded the Committee that the possibility of a Declaration had been discussed both before and at the 85th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 1997, and that this had been the subject of several discussions informally and at various sessions of the Governing Body since then, and most recently in informal tripartite consultations in April 1998. These various discussions had helped to clarify a number of issues, thus allaying certain misgivings. In the Office's view, the Committee had a more manageable text before it, as a basis for discussions and amendments, with a view to achieving the broadest consensus possible.

7. The Chairperson stated that the task of the Committee was to answer the basic question of whether the Conference could achieve a meaningful Declaration and effective follow-up, which would advance the ILO's mandated responsibility to promote fundamental rights. He reminded the Committee that it had a draft based on a year's intensive, inclusive process, and its task was to strive for the greatest consensus possible. The work of the Committee would be evolutionary and as consultative as necessary and possible. He suggested that to the extent possible the general discussion should first deal with the Declaration, even though some cross references to the follow-up mechanism might be necessary.

8. In providing a framework for their statement, the Employer members referred to what they termed as three defining events in the history of the ILO. These were: the establishment of the ILO after the First World War, and the need for establishing minimum labour standards; the Declaration of Philadelphia of 1944, following the Great Depression and the Second World War, at a time when the legitimacy and the relevancy of the ILO were open to serious question, as today; and the globalization of the world economy in the last ten years. They noted that today's world was increasingly interconnected with the falling of trade barriers. With the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1994, there had been substantial pressure to link trade sanctions and core labour standards, which the Employers' group adamantly opposed. They recalled that the Employers' group in the ILO had been among the first to propose a new Declaration addressing fundamental principles, the relevance of which had been confirmed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference in Singapore in 1996, where the ILO had been recognized as the competent body to address labour standards.

9. If the ILO was to retain its central role in the area of fundamental rights, as derived from the values and principles embedded in the ILO Constitution, the Conference would need to adopt a high-minded and uplifting Declaration of principles with a meaningful follow-up mechanism. This would have to be seen as fair also to countries which had not ratified the fundamental Conventions and to those seeking economic growth and higher standards of living. They reminded the Committee of the challenge and opportunity that it faced, of either adopting a meaningful Declaration with a credible follow-up procedure that would establish the ILO as the primary multilateral organization on social issues in the twenty-first century, or of remaining on the side lines while others, without its expertise and history, took its place.

10. The Employers' approach to the Declaration and its follow-up was based on the following six criteria:

(i) the Declaration should embody fundamental values and principles of the ILO that were inherent in membership of the Organization. It should establish no new legal obligations on Members, but rather reflect policy obligations incurred by virtue of their membership;

(ii) the Declaration should not go beyond the present text of the ILO Constitution in terms of follow-up mechanisms. It should impose no new reporting obligations on member States;

(iii) the Declaration should not impose on member States detailed obligations arising from Conventions they had not freely ratified, nor should it impose on countries which had not ratified the fundamental Conventions the supervisory mechanisms that applied to ratified Conventions;

(iv) the application of the principles of the Declaration should not be concerned with technical and legal matters but only with making an overall policy assessment of whether member States were achieving the goals and objectives of the fundamental principles and values of the ILO;

(v) the Declaration should not result in new complaints based bodies such as the Committee on Freedom of Association;

(vi) no links should be made with questions of international trade, and the follow-up mechanism should be limited to the ILO.

11. The Employer members believed that the title of the draft Declaration was limited in scope. They preferred a title such as "Declaration of principles and values of the International Labour Organization for the 21st century".

12. They supported the directness of the draft language of the Declaration text, feeling that the four principles stated in Points 3.1 to 3.4 put succinctly the overriding principles and values of the ILO that were the sine qua non of social justice. Point 3 needed amendment, to make it clear that it referred to fundamental principles under the ILO Constitution, and not legal obligations arising from ILO Conventions. The most that the ILO Constitution could be construed to mean was that by virtue of membership, all Members -- regardless of whether they had ratified the fundamental Conventions -- should work towards the realization of the principles listed in paragraphs 3.1 to 3.4.

13. The Employer members felt that Point 6 was the most problematic one of the Declaration and as part of a statement of the values and principles of the ILO, that should be uplifting, it was a non sequitur. Any link between fundamental labour standards and trade had yet to be established, and the ILO had no competence in trade matters. At the same time, the WTO had no provision for collective condemnation relating to trade. The ILO had therefore repeatedly been asked to include this language in the Declaration, since the issue represented an essential pressure point between trading blocs. Indeed Point 6 was taken verbatim from the WTO Ministerial Conference in Singapore. The Employers recalled that they were utterly opposed to any linkage between trade and labour standards. Protectionism that relied on trade sanctions to intervene in the internal affairs of countries threatened an open global trading and investment system. For the proponents of Point 6, this could be avoided by the adoption of the Declaration and a meaningful follow-up.

14. The Employer members noted that the proposed follow-up procedures represented a continuum of obligations of member States under the ILO Constitution. They also extended to the obligations of membership under article 19(5), namely that of enacting national legislation with respect to Conventions by the Conference. The annual review concerning non-ratified fundamental Conventions would simply involve the reporting already contemplated under article 19(5)(e) "at appropriate intervals as requested by the Governing Body". The continuum of ILO obligations under the Constitution would be completed with the global report and in the Employers' view this was already done, in a sense, under articles 19 and 22, through general and special surveys. The proposed follow-up required merely a recompilation of information in a new format. In the case of ratifying countries the information would come from the obligation already existing under article 22; in the case of non-ratifying countries the information required would involve article 19. Obtaining such information was important for an organization like the ILO, to enable it to assess and discuss the extent to which its Members were meeting its goals and objectives. Despite all that might be said about duplication, this was all that the global report set out to do.

15. In view of the fact that both reports would seek to assess whether Members were observing the ILO's fundamental principles and values, it was not evident to the Employer members why they needed separate follow-up procedures. Although the Employers' group had no strong objection to the separate track approach of the proposed follow-up mechanism, it felt that serious consideration should be given to consolidating the follow-up at appropriate points. They did, however, take strong exception to the idea of the Committee of Experts playing a primary role in the procedure. The observance of the legal obligations of ratified Conventions should not be mixed up with the observance of the fundamental principles embodied in the Declaration. The basis for evaluation under the follow-up procedures would not be legal rules as may be the case after a country had ratified a fundamental Convention; rather the issue would be whether there had been a policy failure which was so serious that the country's circumstances fell below a basic level to which no civilized nation should fall, regardless of whether or not it had ratified the fundamental Conventions.

16. In concluding, the Employer members stressed that the proposed reaffirmation of the fundamental values and principles of the ILO in the form of a Declaration and follow-up was perhaps the single most important undertaking in which any of the Committee members had ever been engaged. The last time such an opportunity had arisen was 50 years ago. Success in this endeavour would indicate to the world the vitality of the ILO and its capacity to be a critical participant on the world stage.

17. The Worker members said they would follow the Chairperson's request to be succinct at this stage. They stated that the Committee could succeed in adopting a meaningful Declaration, provided it had the political will to do so. Despite much support in principle for the Declaration, many people tended to qualify these statements of support with various negative points. The Worker members reminded the Committee of the important signpost of the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995, when the ILO had been mandated to promote fundamental rights in the labour field; as early as 1994 the Workers' group had proposed work on fundamental standards and follow-up in the form of a mechanism similar to the Committee on Freedom of Association.

18. The Worker members had been sceptical about the need for a Declaration, and agreed with the Employers and the Office report that the Declaration was not required in order to have a follow-up mechanism. Fundamental rights already existed; they would not become fundamental simply because a Declaration termed them fundamental. The point of a Declaration was to make a policy commitment to implement those rights and to strengthen the ILO's supervisory machinery to ensure that countries meet their obligations in promoting and safeguarding these rights. In this respect the Workers had a problem with Point 3, the wording of which seemed to suggest that these rights only became rights when a member ratified the Conventions concerned. This would need to be clarified.

19. For the Worker members, Point 6 was a matter for concern. A number of governments had made it clear that there should be no link between trade and labour standards. They challenged the insistence that an area in which the ILO was not mandated should be included in the Declaration.

20. The Worker members disagreed with the Employers' doubts regarding the value of including the Committee of Experts in the follow-up. That Committee had in fact always examined article 19 reports, and was therefore a natural route for the follow-up mechanism.

21. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, recalled that the position of his group's members had been made clear on several occasions. They attached great importance to the promotion of core labour standards and had made considerable efforts to put forward suggestions and provide feedback in order to assist the Office. They were pleased to note the Office's efforts to incorporate their position. Nevertheless, there were still ten key concerns that needed to be reflected in the draft Declaration:

(i) the Declaration should reaffirm that the ILO was the sole competent international organization mandated to set and deal with labour standards;

(ii) the Declaration and any follow-up should be promotional and not complaints-based;

(iii) any follow-up to the Declaration should not target specific countries nor be used to criticize specific country situations;

(iv) technical assistance and advisory services should be key elements of the Declaration and any follow-up procedures;

(v) the Declaration should include a special reference to employment creation, training, education and provision of information, and eradication of poverty;

(vi) no new supervisory mechanisms should be established, in order to avoid double scrutiny;

(vii) the Declaration and its follow-up should not justify the use of labour standards for protectionist purposes, nor to introduce unilateral or multilateral trade measures;

(viii) there should be a clear statement in the Declaration taking into account the economic, social and cultural circumstances of each country;

(ix) the Declaration and follow-up should be thoroughly discussed and adopted by consensus, in order to carry the necessary moral and political weight; and

(x) the Declaration should focus on principles and not rights.

22. The Government member of Canada, speaking on behalf of the IMEC group, noted that Report VII was an excellent basis for discussion as concepts and language had been clarified and it took into account a diversity of positions in a balanced manner; it now had all the required elements. In her view a few key elements were required for the Declaration:

(i) it should constitute a recommitment to the principles and values of the ILO Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia which all member States were committed to uphold by virtue of membership;

(ii) it should be based on principles of the Constitution, reflected in the Conventions, but not on specific provisions of Conventions;

(iii) it should promote universal respect for these principles and a commitment to make efforts to ratify the fundamental Conventions. The Office should commit to assist member States in these efforts.

The follow-up mechanism, which is an essential element of the Declaration, should allow the ILO to have more systematic information on the situation in non-ratifying countries, with respect for the objectives of the Declaration. It would also review trends and progress in respect of fundamental rights at global and country levels, and it would constitute a tangible way for the ILO to respond to international recognition of its role in strengthening application of fundamental rights at work. She reaffirmed the IMEC group's views that the Declaration and its follow-up was a promotional instrument and communications tool. It should not duplicate or undermine existing supervisory machinery. Finally, it should be the basis for an effective work programme to assist member States.

23. The Government member of Ethiopia stated that his delegation supported the Declaration and the follow-up mechanism in the annex. He recalled that he had contributed to earlier discussions and to the informal consultations in May 1998. He was pleased to note that some of his suggestions had been integrated into the text. However, more work was required to make the text acceptable to the whole group. In his view, the main objective of the Declaration and follow-up was to reaffirm the competence of the ILO in achieving respect for core labour standards through technical assistance and advisory services. As such, the Declaration was intended as a promotional tool, not as a commitment to any legally binding obligations nor as an excuse for punitive measures. This would require repositioning Point 6 into the operative part of the draft text, and reaffirming the commitment to alleviating poverty and mitigating its effects. His comments on the follow-up mechanism would be limited at this time to noting that its promotional nature should be adequately reflected in the draft text with a view to ensuring that: (i) the objective of the country reports was not only to review compliance but also to assess the country situation in order to provide assistance; and (ii) the main purpose of the global report would not be to judge or criticize States but to assess relevant developments with a view to defining an action plan. He further noted that his own Government had ratified three of the seven core Conventions and submitted others to the legislature. He concluded by stating that the credibility of the Organization should not be questioned by the success or failure of this one important undertaking, but rather by the cumulative relevance and impact of all aspects of its mandate.

24. The Government member of Barbados, speaking on behalf of the Caribbean States, stated that they had no problem with the proposed Declaration as a whole but that some refinements were necessary for the follow-up mechanism. He also wished to express the special significance of fundamental rights, and the commitment of his constituents to the ILO since the Declaration of Philadelphia. He understood the meaning and scope of the obligations that would be accepted under the Declaration to be consonant with the principles and values of the Constitution of the Organization and the Declaration of Philadelphia, and reaffirmed the agreement of the States of the Caribbean to this focus.

25. The Government member of Norway agreed with the statement of the IMEC group and congratulated the Office on the new draft text which he considered to be improved, shorter, and simpler. It would require very few, if any, amendments. He was, however, concerned with respect to the last sentence of operative Point 2.1, which implied that the realization of fundamental human rights depends upon sufficient resources. Freedom of association and freedom from slavery, for example, depended only on political will. In his view, the new title was a vast improvement.

26. The Government member of Lebanon noted that the Declaration would not be a legally binding instrument, but would rather be promotional in nature. She emphasized that there should be no linkage between the contents of the Declaration and the liberalization of trade, and that the Declaration should not give any State the right to take protectionist measures or other action detrimental to the comparative advantage of other countries. The Declaration was based on ILO core Conventions which referred to four categories of principles. In this regard, she raised the question whether the Declaration's principles would extend -- either in the ILO or other forums -- to future core Conventions adopted by the International Labour Conference, as for example, the child labour Convention currently under discussion.

27. The Government member of Sudan reaffirmed his Government's commitment to the fundamental human rights of workers contained in the ILO Constitution and Declaration of Philadelphia and reflected in the core Conventions. In his view, the Declaration should note explicitly that it did not involve any new responsibilities and should not be taken as a pretext for protectionist measures against certain countries in world trade. He believed the Declaration should be an indicator of economic and social progress, especially to give developing countries an opportunity to measure social progress in the form of promotion of employment, elimination of child labour, alleviation of poverty and enhancement of training that would lead to employment creation. He stressed that the Declaration should clearly set forth that developed countries, especially donors, should have the responsibility vis-ŕ-vis developing countries to make available resources for effective programmes towards social progress and the implementation of fundamental labour standards. Finally, he expressed his Government's view, for later elaboration, that the follow-up mechanism should be within the ambit of article 19 of the Constitution.

28. The Government member of Hungary stated that his Government attached great importance to the adoption of the Declaration, and that in preparing the text, the Office had done well in taking into account the long debates in Geneva and the capitals. A number of difficulties were still apparent as indicated by the square brackets of text, but he hoped that helpful contributions from the various delegations would overcome these differences. He stressed that failure to reach agreement would send a bad signal to the international community, showing that the ILO could not even agree on a minimalist approach. He believed that such a signal would open the door to a number of consequences, including the taking of undesirable trade-related measures.

29. The Government member of Uganda reaffirmed his Government's commitment to ILO standards in general and to fundamental rights in particular, noting that Uganda had ratified three of the core Conventions (on forced labour and collective bargaining), and had instituted a tripartite committee to review labour law with a view to incorporating the principles of the four other core Conventions. Emphasizing support for the Declaration as a whole, he, nevertheless, stressed a few points: (i) the proposed Declaration should be within the existing ILO Constitution. In this regard, he requested clarification of how the proposed Declaration would relate to ILO Conventions; (ii) no new legal obligations could be imposed; (iii) the Declaration should include provision for a dynamic mobilization of resources and technical assistance; and (iv) any Declaration should include stipulations against possible abuse for gaining unfair advantage in international trade.

30. The Government member from Brazil was in favour of the Declaration and the follow-up mechanism. He stated that Point 6 appeared in the text because logic and practicality were not always synonymous, and called upon Committee members to exercise restraint when discussing that point.

31. The Government member of Cyprus regarded the Declaration as a reaffirmation of principles that already existed in the ILO Constitution. She stated that the Conference should adopt the Declaration to send the right signals to ILO constituents and to other forums. The text of the Declaration in her view was quite balanced as drafted, although there was room for improvement. She stressed that, although it might not be easy for all member States to implement the rights enshrined in the core Conventions right away, what was important was a commitment of member States toward that end, and a commitment of the Organization to assist them in implementing them.

32. The Government member of Egypt would have liked to have seen the composition of the Officers of the Conference reflect the necessary balance of industrialized countries and developing countries, but was convinced that the working of the Committee would proceed with the necessary objectivity, and that balance would be taken into account with the election of the rapporteur. He noted that the Egyptian Government had taken part in good faith in all the consultations on the Declaration and follow-up mechanism, with the Office and in previous sessions of the Conference and in the work of the Governing Body. The question he posed was whether the Declaration could yield positive results by improving commitments and putting into effect the standards of seven Conventions without disrupting the necessary balance of interests and priorities among the various partners, both in terms of governments, workers and employers and in the sense of industrialized, rich countries and developing, poor countries.

33. Stressing that the Declaration should promote labour standards and enhance their observation and application, he affirmed the commitment of Egypt to those standards, noting that Egypt had ratified six of the seven fundamental Conventions, with measures being taken in Parliament to ratify the seventh. The efforts of the Egyptian Government transcended the legislative framework, designed as they were to transform the national laws into realities. Consequently, in his view, Egypt was in a better situation than some industrialized countries in terms of commitment to and application of international labour standards.

34. The Government member of Egypt further emphasized that any Declaration should aim at bringing progressive improvement in international labour standards without exerting specific pressure on particular countries. He further stressed that the Declaration should not be created in a vacuum but rather should be based on economic and social realities existing in each society, as confirmed in Part V of the Declaration of Philadelphia. In his view, the Declaration should take into account the gap between societies in terms of economies, level of industrial development, social structures, cultural situations, and struggles against poverty, in particular within the framework of efforts to eliminate poverty.

35. He stated that some opinions expressed, often by the African and Asia and Pacific government groups as well as other developing countries not in those groups, were not fully taken into account in all documents presented by the Office to the Conference, including Report VII, despite clear-cut criteria and modalities for discussion and negotiation. He stated that the Government of Egypt would not be dictated to by the interests of certain governments or by groups of workers or employers in certain industrialized countries. In his view, any Declaration must also reflect the position of developing countries as well as their interests and concerns. If the Declaration was to be promotional in nature, it must be able to mobilize the necessary resources and the right approaches; otherwise, it would become a means of creating arguments rather than an effective instrument of dialogue and cooperation. Therefore, the draft Declaration required changes and amendments to satisfy high expectations and to meet these concerns. In particular, he emphasized that the follow-up mechanism must include aid and technical cooperation programmes to meet the needs of developing countries and mobilize resources to promote social development according to the Programme of Action adopted by the World Summit for Social Development, which mentioned various areas within the competence of the ILO, including work, education, and vocational and technical training, which were of particular importance to developing countries. The draft should stress the role of the ILO, particularly so that at the threshold of the next century, the exclusive mandate of this Organization's competence in international labour standards could be emphasized.

36. The Government member of Egypt observed that balance was necessary in any document of this kind, and accordingly, freedom of discrimination in the workplace should include freedom from discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, sex, political views, and national extraction. He stressed that the Declaration should address the situation of migrant workers, which presents one of the major violations of human rights in the world today. In addition, he stated that any Declaration must contain stipulations against its exploitation or abuse by protectionist or commercial measures or any other measures including those that call into question the comparative advantage of any country, and the current draft language was not adequate in this respect. No Declaration should impose any new obligations on member States; yet the current draft of the Declaration implied that the seven Conventions were binding, even on non-ratifying countries.

37. With regard to the follow-up mechanism, the Government member of Egypt affirmed that the principles and values of the Declaration must derive from the ILO Constitution. In his view, there was no need to develop new supervisory measures and he doubted that the annual report was useful. If it concerned individual countries, in his view it would constitute double scrutiny, particularly as concerned countries which had ratified Conventions. Rather, he favoured limiting the follow-up to the procedure under article 19 covering non-ratifying countries. In sum, he emphasized that any Declaration must be balanced, equitable and promotional, and should seek social justice and concord in all countries in the light of differences in social and economic development. To do so, he emphasized the need for transparency and mutual respect among all partners.

38. The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic hoped that the Committee would achieve positive results in the interests of workers. With regard to the contentious relationship between trade and labour standards, the current draft offered some improvement, as he was opposed to any link between fundamental rights and trade. He stated that the debate on trade should take place in the WTO, where the needs of developing countries should be taken into account. With regard to the follow-up mechanism, article 22 of the Constitution was already tried and tested, in his view, and there was no need to re-examine it. Noting that his Government had ratified six of the seven core labour Conventions, he favoured the use of article 19 reports in the follow-up mechanism.

39. The Government member of India agreed with the statement by the Government member of Japan, made on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group. With reference to Point 1.5 of the Declaration, he felt that the language should be more specific and exact, to reaffirm that the ILO was the sole competent international organization to set and deal with labour standards. He also felt that the Declaration and follow-up should be promotional in nature and not complaints-based. The Declaration and its follow-up should not justify the use of labour standards for protectionist purposes and this point should appear in the operative part of the Declaration. There should also be a clear statement that labour standards were "benchmarks" in the process of development, and should account for differences in culture and economic development. The Declaration should also refer to employment creation, training, education and the eradication of poverty, perhaps in the Preamble. As a non-legally binding reaffirmation of a moral and political commitment, the Declaration should focus on principles and not rights. Finally, the Declaration and any follow-up thereto should be adopted by consensus.

40. The Government member of China agreed with the Asia and Pacific group and wanted to make a few additional general comments. She felt that in the context of globalization, any attempt to encourage protectionism was contrary to all current trends. The WTO Ministerial Conference had affirmed that the ILO was the competent body to set labour standards; the Declaration and its follow-up should promote workers' rights but remove all elements of protectionism. She agreed with the Government member of Egypt that the current text did not reflect the views of the Asia and Pacific group and the developing countries, pointing out that the present title of the draft Declaration was not the one agreed upon by the majority at the November 1997 session of the Governing Body and that the present title added a strong political flavour. A number of people feared any idea of a "social clause"; the Declaration might be considered as an indirect link between standards and trade. If this link was not removed, it might be used as an excuse for trade measures. She added that technical assistance and advice was important to promote fundamental rights, but this should not be linked to implementing standards. Finally, she opposed any new supervisory mechanisms and any forms of double scrutiny.

41. The Government member of Botswana requested an explanation of the implications of Point 3, wondering whether this placed a greater obligation on member States than that contained in the Constitution. Whilst appreciating the objections to the inclusion of trade matters in ILO business, he stressed that the matter had to be examined in the context in which the whole question of labour standards and trade had arisen.

42. The Government member of Mexico, reiterating the position of his country expressed in previous meetings of the Governing Body, supported the adoption of a Declaration of a promotional nature on principles regarding fundamental rights and felt that the existing supervisory procedures could be used to follow up its implementation. It was important to stress the exclusive competence of the ILO in labour matters and that there should be no link between the Declaration and the adoption of trade measures. In this regard, however, neither the drafting of Point 6 nor its separation from the rest of the text through asterisks provided sufficient guarantee against such a link. He added that Mexico, the Americas group and other countries had also made it clear that neither the Declaration nor its follow-up should create new legal obligations nor be legally binding; it should neither be based on a complaints procedure nor constitute an assessment of compliance of national legislation with the provisions of the relevant Conventions. The Declaration and its follow-up mechanism should not replace nor duplicate existing machinery. These ideas should prevail in the elaboration and the wording of the final texts. Finally, he associated himself with the position of the Employers' group concerning the need to reconsider the title of the Declaration.

43. The Government member of Myanmar agreed with the position of the Asia and Pacific group and wished only to make general observations at this stage. If the Declaration were to be successful, it would require the cooperation, on equitable terms, of all the members of the Committee -- otherwise, it would merely constitute a "paper" Declaration.

44. The Government member of Chile believed that the aim of the Declaration was to reaffirm the aims and objectives of the ILO in the light of the new challenges facing the Organization at the end of the century. This Declaration represented an opportunity for the ILO to make its mark; the ILO could clearly not remain on the sidelines at this historic moment. In order for the Declaration to have the appropriate moral and political weight, it should be adopted by consensus. He stressed that the Declaration should not contain any protectionist measures, should be promotional in nature and should have an effective follow-up mechanism.

45. The Government member of Bahrain expressed appreciation for Report VII, which sought to account for all the different views expressed in discussions on the subject to date. He was, however, concerned that, although the historical background in the report took into account all the points made in earlier discussions, the text of the proposed Declaration left out a number of principles mentioned in the report. For example, Point 2.1 did not mention that member States commit themselves to bringing about the objectives of the Organization gradually, in stages, in a progressive manner, with a view to attaining their own economic and social development in accordance with the specific country's conditions. He emphasized the need for the Declaration to mention the important element of progress in the light of levels of development and historical and cultural characteristics of each member State, rather than imposing anything resembling a single, uniform level of protection. He asserted that the draft Declaration should take into account the degree of development and resources available to member States. He further noted that article 19(3) of the ILO Constitution stated that the framing of ILO Conventions should take into account the economic and social conditions of member States. Many had expressed the view that the text should make it clear that the Declaration did not commit member States which had not ratified Conventions to any obligations beyond those mentioned in the Constitution.

46. The Government member of Bahrain noted that while the report said that the Declaration was not aimed at constraining member States to observe obligations arising under Conventions which had not been ratified, the draft did not state explicitly that no new obligations were imposed on States, nor that member States had total freedom when it came to ratifying Conventions. He stressed the need to specify the form and objectives of the assistance to be given by the ILO to member States to help them ratify the core Conventions. He concluded by stating that the text should reflect not only that the draft Declaration would not affect the present system with regard to freedom of association, but also that the proposed Declaration regime should not be affected by the complaints procedure.

47. The Government member of Canada noted the importance of reaffirming the universal commitment to fundamental rights. It was important to focus on the specific objective of the Committee -- the adoption of a Declaration and a follow-up mechanism -- which would promote fundamental principles which all other Members would be committed to upholding. This did not detract in any way from the importance of other economic and social issues, but these were the subject of intensive efforts in other forums, where the ILO had an important part to play. While recognizing that the ILO had a central role to play in economic and social development, he felt that to try to capture the full range of ILO activities in the present document was beyond the scope of the Committee. In his view, there seemed to be general agreement as to the fundamental principles and rights; "fundamental" meant that those principles must be upheld by all ILO Members as universal, not relative; absolute, not conditional; and for now and not the future. He recognized that many member States that were engaged in the critical struggle for development required more assistance, but that development should be sustainable and improve the well-being of all those who worked so hard to contribute to it. Such development should be free from discrimination, restrictions on freedom of association and forced labour, and should protect children from exploitation. He believed that the drafters of the Declaration of Philadelphia had in mind that the fundamental principles in that Declaration were for that time and place, not for some other time or some other circumstances. The needs of countries in difficult economic and social conditions should not be overlooked. The follow-up mechanism was a means of identifying such difficulties and mobilizing all the resources necessary to overcome difficulties that member States may have in attaining these standards. Noting that the current draft was a good one, he, nevertheless, saw some areas for modification: the text should convey that the promotion of fundamental human rights was a universal commitment irrespective of the economic, social or cultural conditions of any member State; with respect to child labour, the existing text should reflect the approach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child regarding the elimination of all exploitative forms of child labour and the commitment to the elimination of all child work that is detrimental to children's well-being, development or education.

48. The Government member of Italy, supporting the statement made earlier for the IMEC group, felt that this was a good text, taking account of all points of view. It was intended to promote the principles already contained in the Declaration of Philadelphia and not to create a binding document but rather to have a renewed commitment to adopt policies in line with ILO principles. Referring to many of the concerns of developing countries mentioned in the general discussion, he noted that the Preamble met these succinctly. However, Point 6 could be included in the Preamble, which was important, and could be based upon paragraph 4 of the Declaration adopted by the trade ministers' meeting at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Singapore. As regards the proposed follow-up, no new mechanism nor obligations were being suggested. The annual global report would basically serve to provide a panorama of the situation regarding fundamental rights, and only thereby perhaps form a basis for more ratifications. The role of the global report would be to bring the Governing Body and the Conference up to date on the situation, as well as to form a basis for further technical support to member States.

49. The Government member of Slovakia noted that his country had ratified all seven core Conventions and expressed support for the Declaration. The Government member of Algeria reaffirmed the position he had adopted on this question since the start. It was based on two fundamental principles, namely that this Declaration should reaffirm the pre-eminence of the ILO as regards international labour standards, and that it should not be used for protectionist or trade purposes.

50. The Government member of South Africa noted that global integration went hand in hand with adherence to international labour standards; however, the comparative advantage of any country should not be called into question. Recalling the agreement in Copenhagen to promote ILO standards, he said the problem was how to translate this commitment into practice for the ILO. He was aware that some felt that this discussion on the Declaration was about the "social clause" in another form. Indeed the relationship between trade and labour standards could not be denied. But the point was that the proposed Declaration could not be used to pursue commercial or protectionist interests which would be counter-productive to the Committee's general endeavours. Noting the progress achieved since the 85th Session of the Conference in narrowing differences of opinion and approach regarding a Declaration, he was concerned that a wide consensus should be forthcoming and that no extreme positions on either side should undermine the goal of the Committee. Regarding the follow-up mechanism, he stated that its basic role was to evaluate the situation and to remedy any failure to achieve fundamental rights.

51. The Government member of Namibia welcomed the draft Declaration as a basis for discussion, stating that more attention was necessary as regards the following: (i) technical assistance to promote fundamental rights; (ii) employment creation, which was integrally related to labour standards, as discussed in Copenhagen; (iii) a credible follow-up mechanism; and (iv) ensuring that the Declaration would not be used to target any particular country. In his view, the global report mentioned in the proposed follow-up would serve to highlight the issues of concern regarding fundamental rights and help to lead the Organization in new directions.

52. The Government member of the Philippines, while expressing support for the principle of a Declaration, noted that a balance had to be found in order to pursue core labour standards without infringing upon the sovereign rights of member States. The draft Preamble provided the rationale for the need to reaffirm those principles and why it was urgent to do so now. He felt that regardless of the relative stage of development of countries, it was desirable to adhere to the core principles noted in the Declaration.

53. The Government member of Poland said that his country was one of the 35 States that had ratified all seven core Conventions, and would like to see such protection extended in other countries, irrespective of the relative level of development. In his view, Report VII was quite acceptable, but he had three basic issues of concern: (i) that the Declaration be promotional in nature; (ii) that it not duplicate existing monitoring procedures or create new ones; and (iii) that it eliminate the possibility of serving as a basis for economic measures against countries not implementing the fundamental principles. The views expressed by the IMEC group could serve as a balanced approach for reaching consensus.

54. The Government member of Mauritius said that the draft Declaration was a promotional document, pursuing principles to which member States had already subscribed in joining the ILO. The obligations arising under it would be those existing under the Constitution. However, it was necessary to deal with the legitimate concerns of developing countries. He wondered whether Point 6 was the best means of achieving this since it was limited in scope and had an economic rather than a labour dimension, thereby falling outside the ILO's main field of activity. Perhaps this issue would be better dealt with in the introduction or the Preamble. He supported the idea of providing technical assistance to member States, to ensure that social development and progress went hand in hand with economic growth, rendering that growth sustainable.

55. The Government member of Switzerland stated that his Government attached great importance to the Declaration since the document would make it possible to refocus ILO activities on the promotion and implementation of fundamental standards. The draft Declaration, in his view, provided a concrete, positive response to the social challenges of globalization, which represented the main task of the ILO at this time. He endorsed what had been said on behalf of the IMEC group, and wished to add a few additional comments: (i) the Declaration could only be meaningful if its implementation was guaranteed by a credible follow-up mechanism which did not impose new obligations on member States; (ii) the spirit of the Declaration should reflect that the principles it reaffirmed must be respected by all member States inherent in their membership in the Organization irrespective of their cultural and economic situations; and (iii) the Declaration and follow-up should apply to all Members of the Organization, as a matter of equity among ILO constituents.

56. The Government member of Saudi Arabia, on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates), agreed with the statement of Japan on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group and the statements of Egypt, the Syrian Arab Republic and Bahrain. The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council wished the following points to be taken into account: (i) the ILO was the only organization competent to lay down principles and standards in this field; (ii) the Declaration should not impose any new commitments on countries, and there was no need for a follow-up mechanism or a dual mechanism in addition to the mechanisms which already existed -- this was not taken into account properly in the present draft Declaration; (iii) the Declaration should focus on the attainment of its objectives without overlooking the cultures, needs, and specific conditions of member States; (iv) the Declaration and follow-up should not be used for any trade purposes or for criticizing any specific situations in the member States; and (v) the Declaration and any follow-up should be of a promotional nature and should not be complaints-based.

57. The Government member of Saudi Arabia, in reviewing the text of the Declaration, had noticed a change in the statement of principles and some ambiguity which required clarification. He noted, for example: (i) the difference between the title proposed in the report and that decided by the Governing Body in November 1997; (ii) the order of the rights listed in Points 1.4 and 3 was different from that used in the Constitution, the Declaration of Philadelphia and the Copenhagen Social Summit Declaration; (iii) the meaning of "competent and multilateral organizations" in Point 4.3 was unclear; (iv) in the Arabic text, the stipulation in Point 5 that the follow-up included the study by the Governing Body of annual reports presented according to article 19(5)(e) of the Constitution, at convenient periods, would render it devoid of meaning; and (v) the draft Declaration should take into account the difference in levels of economic and social development, as provided for in the Declaration of Philadelphia, and should also take account of the specific conditions and traditions of each country and its culture and beliefs -- which meant the opportunity to develop national systems and institutions according to its social and economic development. He noted with satisfaction the Director-General's statement that the draft Declaration did not impose any new commitments on member States, and that it preserved the freedom of States concerning the ratification of Conventions, and stated that he would have liked to have seen a stipulation to that effect in the draft Declaration.

58. The Government member of the United Kingdom, expressing strong support for the Declaration, noted that its role was not to cover the wider ILO mandate on other economic and social issues. She noted that the principle of a Declaration clearly seemed to enjoy wide support, and that the credibility of the Organization would be damaged if a Declaration were not adopted. At the same time, it should be clear that nothing in the Declaration sought to erode the comparative advantage of developing countries. The point of the follow-up was indeed to identify the difficulties in achieving fundamental rights, and to mobilize the resources and assistance required to help in achieving those fundamental rights.

59. The Government member of Pakistan, in expressing his support and full cooperation for the negotiations ahead, said it was essential that the procedure should be as open and transparent as possible so that no country should feel left out nor have an excuse to use procedural failure to back out. He recalled the rationale that was originally cited for having a Declaration, which included: (i) the Declaration was to be a reaffirmation of the principles contained in the ILO Constitution and the obligations voluntarily accepted by Members; (ii) the Declaration should remove the immunity from ILO supervisory mechanisms that some member States enjoyed because they had not ratified the core Conventions; (iii) the Declaration should be a corollary to the commitments made in the Social Summit; and (iv) the Declaration and its follow-up would be promotional and not complaints-based. Stressing that there was not necessarily a need to reaffirm the constitutional principles, he stated that his Government's concern was not to modify the original contract it had undertaken with the ILO in ratifying the Constitution. From his point of view and that of developing countries like his, the added value of this exercise would be in reaffirming the sole competence of the ILO in setting and dealing with international labour standards and ensuring that the Declaration and its follow-up should not be used for unilateral actions calling into question the comparative advantage of countries, especially low-wage developing countries. He expressed some doubt that the current text reflected this. Improvements to the text would include, in particular, revisions to ensure that the document might claim to be a corollary to the Social Summit Declaration, particularly in respect to the concept of employment. More specifically: (i) he agreed in principle with the Employers regarding the need to change the title; (ii) the most important points were 1.5 and 6; (iii) major changes were needed to Points 3 and 4; (iv) certain preambular and operative points either had little relevance, were factually incorrect or were based on wrong assumptions; and (v) points relating to employment, job creation, poverty alleviation and the development of human resources were required. While emphasizing that he would restrict amendments to issues which were of strategic importance to his country, he was concerned that the Declaration now seemed elevated to the level of being a possible successor or consort to the Declaration of Philadelphia, despite assurances made in the November 1997 session of the Governing Body that the Declaration was simply meant to reaffirm the principles already contained in the Constitution. He concluded by distinguishing his delegation from those who believed that the fate of the ILO hinged upon the draft Declaration. Associating himself with the comments of the Government of Ethiopia, he stated that the ILO has been doing useful work and would have a role as long as people worked for a living.

60. The Government member of Colombia agreed to the proposal to promote and reaffirm the principles enshrined in the ILO Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia. As regards the follow-up, this should be promotional in character and based on international cooperation. He was glad to note that the objective of the global report was to establish a plan of action. As regards Point 6 of the Declaration, he felt this should be kept in the main body of the text and that it should be stressed that the Declaration should not be used to undermine the comparative advantage of countries, not only by other States but also by international organizations.

61. The Government member of Nigeria reaffirmed the support and cooperation of the African Government group for the Declaration and its follow-up mechanism. In reiterating the salient points made at the recent OAU meeting in Pretoria, he said: (i) it should be made clear that there should be no provisions in the Declaration allowing for protectionism; (ii) the Declaration should not impose any new legal obligations which would be contrary to international law; and (iii) the ILO should support the initiative by drawing up technical cooperation programmes to promote the principles contained in the Declaration.

62. The Government member of Japan felt that the ILO had made great efforts to reflect the various stages of the discussions on the Declaration during the past few months in moving closer to a consensus. The current draft was not perfect but there would be the opportunity to improve it. He felt that the ILO's credibility was at stake; it could not afford to fail in this mission of adopting a Declaration. However, he wished to point out that it was not enough merely to ratify the seven core Conventions; the principles in those Conventions must be upheld. The key role of the ILO was to promote those principles and it should carry out its work in a well-balanced way. Attention should be given to the various situations existing in each country and new obligations should not be imposed on member States. He felt it important that the Declaration and follow-up should provide for adequate technical assistance to help member States attain the objectives contained in the Declaration.

63. The Government member of Venezuela said that the Declaration should make it clear that international labour standards were within the sole competence of the ILO, within the mandate defined by its Constitution. He also felt it was necessary to adopt a text that took into account the different levels of social and economic development of countries. The Declaration had to be of a political nature without creating further obligations, and free from juridical connotations. Finally, it was important to have a specific clause stating that the Declaration had no link to trade measures.

64. The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic associated himself with the comments made by the Government member of Saudi Arabia. He noted that: (i) it was vital that the governments of member States should not be affected by any new obligations; (ii) there should be no link between international labour standards and trade; (iii) provision should be made for technical assistance to member States; and (iv) there should be no new follow-up machinery.

65. The Government member of Cuba was of the opinion that the ILO was the exclusive forum competent in social and labour matters, and that it was important to avoid all linkages with trade measures. With respect to the follow-up mechanism, she felt that there might be some contradiction between article 19 of the Constitution and the proposed mechanism since the former did not provide for the creation of new procedures. She was concerned about the difference between the current draft title and the past wording used.

66. The Government member of the Republic of Korea fully supported the idea of the Declaration, but felt it should take into account the different economic and social conditions prevailing in each country. It should also be accompanied by technical assistance measures to enable member States to ratify and implement fundamental Conventions, but it should not result in the setting up of new supervisory bodies. The ILO Constitution already provided for adequate follow-up procedures.

67. The Government member of Germany stressed that the eyes of the world were on the ILO; both the Social Summit in Copenhagen and the Ministerial Conference in Singapore had mandated the Organization with the promotion of fundamental rights. There were bound to be shortcomings in the guarantee of those rights, but a Declaration underpinning the principles contained in the Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia was appropriate and worthy of support. Nonetheless, there would not be much purpose to the Declaration if there were not a follow-up. He felt that no new legal obligations should be imposed; an additional obligation to report was not a legal obligation in this sense, but would give a comprehensive overview of the situation. The Declaration should not be linked to trade relations of a protectionist nature or call into question the comparative advantage of other countries. In his view, Point 6 was not in the appropriate place; he agreed with the Government member of Mauritius that it should rather be in the Preamble.

68. The Government member of Indonesia, associating herself with the first statement made by the representative of the Asia and Pacific group, felt that the title of the Declaration should be changed, Points 3 and 4 should be amended and Point 6 should be in the operative part of the Declaration. She stressed that there should be no link between trade and labour standards.

69. The Government member of Kenya pointed out that since his country had become a Member of the ILO in 1964, it had always upheld ILO principles, witnessed by the fact that it had ratified 46 Conventions including four of the seven core Conventions. He felt that a Declaration would reaffirm the commitment of Members to uphold basic principles. The Declaration should be legally non-binding and promotional in nature in order to encourage member States to make their own voluntary efforts to respect fundamental rights. The Declaration should be adopted by consensus and should explicitly reaffirm the pre-eminence of the ILO in the area of international labour standards. It should not call into question the comparative advantage of low-wage developing countries, and should take into account the various social and economic conditions prevailing in these countries. There should be no linkage between labour standards and international trade; indeed, at the Uruguay Round trade talks the idea of any "social clause" had been firmly rejected.

70. The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran shared the views expressed by previous speakers that the Declaration should not be legally binding. In addition, in his view, not only should there be no linkage between labour standards and trade measures of a protectionist nature, but there should be no introduction of trade measures or conditionality of any nature using labour standards as a pretext.

71. The Legal Adviser provided the following clarifications in response to questions that had arisen. The first of those questions concerned the proposed title for the Declaration, regarding which certain Members had noted a perceived contradiction between the title which appeared on the cover of the report and that which appeared in the draft text of the Declaration. The Legal Adviser noted two technical details. The title of the report corresponded to the title of the item which the Governing Body had adopted for use in the agenda of the Conference; that title consequently served to define the general scope of work of the Committee. The second title was simply a proposal, like the rest of the draft text, which could be modified subject to two limitations: first, the title of the text must reflect the content of the Declaration and second, the Committee must deal with fundamental rights and not, for example, the aims and objectives of the ILO.

72. Responding to a question from the Government member of Lebanon, the Legal Adviser indicated that the fact that the Declaration did not contain a list of the fundamental Conventions corresponding to the four categories of rights and principles (a list of which appeared in the report) was deliberate in order not to freeze the situation. In that regard, he noted that one of the questions which could be posed was whether the future Convention on the most extreme forms of child labour would be covered by the Declaration. In his view, that question was of relatively limited import given that the Declaration contemplated the implementation, not of specific provisions of Conventions, but rather of the principles of those Conventions. The effective abolition of child labour appeared in the draft Declaration, and this fundamental right encompassed the elimination of the most extreme forms of child labour. The only question which might be raised, from a practical point of view, would be whether in the framework of future reports which would be requested under the annual follow-up according to article 19, the Governing Body could make a specific request relating to any developments concerning the most extreme forms of child labour.

73. He then addressed a recurring question of terminology surrounding the distinction between values, principles and rights. He remarked that those terms were already used in various international texts with differing connotations, and that many of the terms in the draft Declaration brought with them the problems that their usage could involve. What was important was to use the terms in a coherent and consistent way within the framework of the Declaration text. Thus, as for "values", the intention had been to refer to concepts of moral order which were widely shared, of which three examples were in the Constitution and Declaration of Philadelphia: freedom, equality of opportunity, and solidarity. "Principles" could be viewed as the translation or manifestation of those values into action in a concrete context: for example, the principle of freedom of association was a concrete manifestation of freedom. Finally, the concept of "rights" constituted an active acknowledgment in law, of the principles. It was, nevertheless, true that the distinction between "principles" and "rights" was at times delicate and that was why, to avoid difficulties, the two terms "values" and "principles" had been used together in earlier texts.

74. Finally, the Legal Adviser replied to a question raised by the Government member of Botswana as to whether Point 3 of the draft Declaration would expand the constitutional obligations of member States. He stressed that "fundamental rights" did not mean the specific provisions of the Conventions concerned, but their principles. However, he acknowledged that there was a nuance in meaning between the French and English texts of that paragraph. The English text could give the impression that the "fundamental rights" mentioned referred directly to specific provisions of Conventions while the French text more clearly referred to the principles of those Conventions. The Legal Adviser explained the nuance again in reply to a subsequent question by the Government member of Sweden, adding that, during the amendment phase or in the final drafting, it would be possible to establish greater harmony between the texts.

75. The Worker members appreciated the Legal Adviser's explanation of "rights, values and principles", although they remained somewhat perplexed. They were clear that persons involved in forced labour, for example, already had rights as workers; they did not have these rights merely because a particular Convention had been ratified. Many member States seemed to have accepted that there were basic principles although some governments seemed to feel that they did not exist unless a Convention had been ratified. The Declaration, in their view, would embody an overall recognition of workers' rights.

76. The Employer members found the Legal Adviser's clarification extremely useful. They did feel that the English and French versions of the draft Declaration were somewhat different, as exemplified by the phrase in Point 3 mentioned by the Legal Adviser. The English version stated that Members should work in good faith and to the best of their abilities towards the realization of the "fundamental rights contained therein" which might, indeed, give the impression that those rights were obligations in the Conventions. The French version perhaps gave a better impression that those rights were tantamount to goals and objectives. They also referred to the Spanish translation of "freedom of association" -- which differed from the notion contained in the Declaration of Philadelphia and was not consistent with the English text of the draft Declaration. They felt that it was reassuring that there seemed to be a clear consensus for a Declaration. They did not believe that there was a problem with duplication and double jeopardy with respect to the follow-up mechanism; Point 5 could perhaps deal with this matter. They felt that the issue of the title should be dealt with at the end of the discussion.

77. Since most speakers in the general discussion had noted the integral connection between the Declaration and its follow-up, and that it was impossible to decide on a number of problematic points in the Declaration without knowing how these would be followed up, it was decided to deal first with the follow-up and then with the Declaration itself. The Worker members agreed that discussions on the title should take place later.

II. Discussion of the proposed text of the follow-up

78. The Legal Adviser made preliminary remarks about the follow-up mechanism at the beginning of the general discussion on this question. He noted first that the mechanism had a promotional objective, not a supervisory one; supervision was legally possible only under the established procedures of the Organization, and exclusively as concerned ratified Conventions. He stated that, on the basis of that general framework, his remarks would focus on two aspects of the follow-up.

79. As for the first aspect, that is, the annual review, he noted that it was first a question of carrying out a review each year of the situation concerning the four categories of fundamental rights for those countries which had not ratified the fundamental Conventions. The fact that the inclusion of freedom of association had been judged necessary indirectly confirmed the promotional character of the review. While there was already a mechanism on freedom of association, that mechanism was a supervisory mechanism which dealt exclusively with what might be called cases of serious variance from constitutional principles, while the annual review would have a different objective: to provide a general description of the situation in the countries concerned on those questions. The promotional character of the annual review was highlighted by the fact that it came under the general framework of article 19(5)(e) of the Constitution which was based precisely on the premise that " ... if the Member does not obtain the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, no further obligation shall rest upon the Member except that it shall report to the Director-General ..." (emphasis added). It was also important to emphasize that the promotional mechanism was not new inasmuch as article 19(5)(e) had already been implemented by the Governing Body to promote in a systematic way the four categories of fundamental rights. In 1995, the Governing Body had decided, without arousing controversy, to use that article to request four-yearly reports for a complete review of each of the categories in turn. The annual review now contemplated was not in principle distinct from that which had been decided in 1995 but differed simply as a matter of method since it would be carried out on an annual basis, and would be more succinct. Finally, it should be stressed that the annual review would not be duplicative as it would replace the four-yearly reports introduced in 1995 for each category of fundamental rights.

80. With regard to the second aspect of the follow-up, the global report, it was based on a single idea: the absence of ratification of a fundamental Convention was not necessarily proof that everything was going badly in the country concerned, just as ratification did not give an absolute guarantee that all was perfect. The global report would aim to offer an overall view for each of the categories of fundamental rights and to evaluate every four years the developments occurring. In the light of those developments, the Organization would be in a better position to set priorities for assistance and promotion. The global report would not involve any new administrative burden since it would be established essentially on the basis of elements already found in reports submitted under articles 19 and 22. The global report likewise would not involve any double scrutiny since it could not revisit the individual situations of each State. As those situations had already been reviewed under established constitutional procedures, they could be considered as res judicata. Far from being a judgement on the attitude of States, the global report would aim at evaluating how effective the action of the ILO had been with regard to fundamental rights, and would allow the implementation of the "concomitant" obligation which the Declaration imposed on the Organization, alongside the commitment of States to promote the fundamental rights, to provide States with all appropriate assistance to that end.

81. The Employer members reaffirmed that the global and annual reports were interconnected. They felt that there should be an introductory clause to the follow-up mechanism which should read as follows:

82. The Employer members had a number of overall comments to make on the follow-up. They felt that in Points 1 and 1.1.1, the word "core" should be replaced with the word "fundamental" to be in line with the Declaration. They suggested that Point 1.1.2 should read as follows:

83. The Employer members referred to the alternatives in Point 1.2.3. They felt that the Committee of Experts was not the appropriate body for this purpose. General surveys conducted under article 19 had never actually pronounced on whether national law and practice was in accordance with a particular Convention; they had merely given a policy appreciation. The Office could be assisted by a group of experts appointed by the Governing Body; they suggested that Point 1.2.3 precede Point 1.2.2 and read as follows:

84. The Employer members felt that the follow-up should not be specific about a four-year period in Point 2.1.1 since the situation might evolve. They also felt that the word "each" in Point 2.1.2 should be replaced in the English version by the word "one" as there was a certain ambiguity in this sentence. They also proposed a new Point 2.1.3 to read as follows:

85. The Employer members also had concerns about the square brackets in Point 2.2.1. They wondered what was actually intended by "reliable international sources". They also felt that Point 2.2.2 prejudged what the Governing Body might decide. They suggested that it be replaced by the following:

86. The Worker members stressed that the follow-up must be meaningful, effective and credible. In order to guarantee this, the Committee should ensure that it took sufficiently clear decisions on the framework of the follow-up, for the Governing Body to proceed in its work. They agreed with the two points made by the Employer members, namely that the term "fundamental" Conventions was preferable to "core" Conventions and that the word "each" in Point 2.1.2 should be replaced by the word "one". The follow-up mechanism should be composed of two basic elements: the annual review and the global report. In the case of the annual review, the question was who would examine the reports based on article 19 of the Constitution. The Employers had dealt with both reports together and said they should be examined by both the Governing Body and external experts; the Worker members had strong misgivings about this. If the Office was to reassure governments about their doubts, the examination must have integrity and engender confidence. The Governing Body, by its very nature, had political views; the Workers therefore had a strong preference for this review to be undertaken by either the Committee of Experts or some other group of experts; it should not be subject to political analysis. The information should then go to the Governing Body, which might set up committees to make observations on selected cases. This would guarantee a "meaningful" follow-up without going beyond the Constitution. As far as the global report was concerned, the Worker members welcomed the proposal for a general overall review. They disagreed with the Employer members that the reference to "relevant" information gathered on the basis of reliable sources should be deleted. After all, international agencies worked closely together on specific issues, and the ILO had enough expertise to evaluate what information was reliable. The major issue at stake was to have a meaningful discussion which might help member States achieve the objectives contained in the Declaration. The global report should complement the existing supervisory machinery and not undermine it. The Worker members were open to any options that would ensure a high-profile discussion of the report and concrete outputs. They felt that it should be the object of a special sitting of the Conference; indeed, it could be a standing item on the Conference agenda and any matters arising from the subsequent discussion should be submitted to the Governing Body so that the latter could see how best to help Members meet the goals contained in the Declaration.

87. The Government member of Mauritius felt that the proposed follow-up was a good basis for discussion and that there was no point in a Declaration that was not accompanied by a follow-up that was truly effective, meaningful and credible. However, this effectiveness would only be tested over time. He stressed that the annual review should not be too elaborate and technical; this would only obscure proceedings. He suggested adding the word "simple" in Point 5 of the Declaration so that reference could be made to a follow-up that was "meaningful, simple and effective".

88. The Government member of Canada, speaking on behalf of the IMEC group, noted that the follow-up, in her view, was an integral part of the Declaration and should be effective and promotional and not duplicate or undermine current supervisory machinery. It should also provide for the formulation of an effective programme of work to assist member States in their efforts to meet the objectives of the Declaration. The IMEC group supported the two-part approach outlined in the annex. The first part, based on article 19, should be reviewed in the Governing Body taking into account the general proposal in Point 1.2.4 for participation by Members outside the Governing Body. There was no need for a separate Committee since the purpose of the exercise was different from that of the regular supervisory mechanisms; the IMEC group supported a review by an independent group of experts appointed specifically for that purpose. Those experts should not be members of the Governing Body. The IMEC group also fully supported the concept of a global report. The purpose of Point 2.1 would be: to review trends and progress at the global and country levels; to communicate the ILO's actions in promoting fundamental rights to the international community; and to result in an effective programme of work to assist member States. The report should draw upon all sources as outlined in this section, and the sentence in square brackets referring to relevant information should be retained. The group believed that the Declaration should become a regular agenda item at the Conference and that there should be a special sitting in the plenary to discuss it. They also thought it essential that there should be some reference to the Governing Body for specific action following this discussion at the Conference, so that the Office might draw up an action programme to assist member States.

89. The Government member of Ethiopia did not consider that Point 1.1.1 of the proposed follow-up was promotional in nature. He suggested adding after the words "to review annually" the following text: "and provide assistance to member States to overcome obstacles they may have encountered in applying principles in the Constitution and Declaration of Philadelphia". He also suggested changing "legal basis and examination" to "methods and procedures of examination". He pointed out that reference was made in Point 1.2.1 to article 23 of the Constitution but that this article did not refer to any observations by employers' and workers' organizations. His country preferred the report to be examined by the Committee of Experts. As concerned the global report, he felt that the Office explanation in Report VII was clearer than the actual annex. The global report was not intended to be country- or case-specific, and Point 2.1.1 should be reworded in accordance with the explanation given in Report VII. He suggested that the square bracketed sentence in Point 2.2.1 of the follow-up should be removed and that the report should be an annex to the Director-General's Report submitted to the Conference. He also said that the Governing Body should be able to discuss and decide on the action plan.

90. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, felt that the follow-up should address a number of key concerns that had already been stated. It should be promotional and have technical assistance and cooperation as key elements of the follow-up. It should not be complaints-based, create double scrutiny or criticize specific country situations, and should be adopted together with the Declaration by consensus. He made a number of suggestions by which the follow-up could be based on existing procedures. He suggested changing the questionnaires for article 19 reports, changing the reporting frequency, elaborating on the general survey procedure to serve this purpose and using existing committees to review the reports. He also felt that the title of the follow-up mechanism should conform to the title of the Declaration, and suggested the text: "Follow-up for the Declaration reaffirming the fundamental principles of the ILO Constitution". Furthermore, in the introduction to the annex, it should be specified that: "The purpose of this follow-up shall be to identify areas where technical and other assistance and cooperation are required and it shall not be used to provide a basis for complaints or criticism of specific country situations". As regards Point 1.1.2 concerning the annual review, he felt that the word "rights" should be changed to "principles" and would like to see the word "observing" changed. He preferred the following wording: "with a view to providing necessary assistance that will enable countries to observe fundamental principles and values enshrined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia". He also believed that governments should have an opportunity in the reports to express their needs and priorities for technical assistance. The last three lines of Point 1.2.1 should be deleted from "to be supplemented" until the end, and the following text substituted: "duly taking into account the provisions of article 23 of the Constitution". Regarding the review of annual reports, as envisaged in Point 1.2.2, the point could read: "These reports will be examined in a promotional manner by the Committee of Experts and will be submitted to the Conference Committee on Standards in the form of a general survey in accordance with article 7 of the Standing Orders of the International Labour Conference." He also suggested the deletion of Point 1.2.3 because it envisaged targeting specific countries. With respect to the global report, the members of the group were concerned that it might create double scrutiny. Care should be taken that an issue examined in the Governing Body could not be covered elsewhere, and that the global report would not criticize specific country situations but rather identify needs for technical assistance. He believed that this report would be better referred to as a "global overview" or "global survey", and it should be submitted to the Conference and not be subject to decision. He felt that the words "significant developments" in Point 2.1.1 contradicted the idea of general trends and did not seem promotional in nature. He agreed that the word "each" in Point 2.1.2 should be replaced by "one", and stated that the word "rights" should be replaced by "principles". In reference to Point 2.2.1, he felt that the Director-General should prepare the global overview based on reports submitted by member States on non-ratified Conventions under article 19(5)(e) of the Constitution and on ratified Conventions under article 22 of the Constitution. It should be in line with the promotional nature of the Declaration and not be country-specific. He again expressed the hope that the comments and concerns of his group would be incorporated.

91. The Government member of Saudi Arabia, speaking on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council, agreed with the statement made by the Government member of Japan. He felt that the follow-up would create a new machinery for considering reports on non-ratifying countries, in addition to the global report and reports on these same Conventions already being examined by the Committee of Experts. The consequences of this would involve the following. States that had not ratified one or more of the fundamental Conventions would be cited in the annual report, and then in the global report, so it would be examined twice by the Conference on the same subject. The Committee of Experts might receive reports from non-ratifying States at the same time it received the annual and global reports, which meant three reports on the same subject. Countries would also be able to express themselves in the Governing Body as provided in Point 1.2.4. As 139 States had not ratified all these Conventions, this would take a great deal of time. This procedure would amount to a complaints procedure. Also, calling upon members of the Committee of Experts would not only involve much work but also considerable financial costs which might be better used for technical cooperation.

92. The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic agreed with the statements made by the two previous speakers. He felt that any new mechanism would complicate matters further, and that the existing follow-up mechanisms on the basis of articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution should be retained. Articles 23 to 34 of the Constitution already provided an adequate system of procedures for complaints. He felt that the annex to the Declaration would create new machinery and that the resources involved might be better used for technical cooperation. He wanted to avoid any double scrutiny and to exclude any new mechanism, relying on the existing machinery based on the ILO Constitution.

93. The Government member of Pakistan associated himself with the Government member of Japan, who had spoken on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group. He had no major problems concerning the annual review but wished to make three points. First, the Committee of Experts was capable of dealing with these reports under article 19(5)(e) of the Constitution. This would avoid the creation of any new supervisory machinery. Second, the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards should deal with these reports in the form of a general survey. Third, he did not agree with the Employer members' suggestion to set up a working party to act as a "filtering mechanism". With respect to the global report, he had some major reservations. The possibility of such a report had not been voiced when the idea of the Declaration was first raised and he was concerned that the report could be used to further protectionist interests. Indeed, it could become a very broad social label. While some governments saw the global report as something promotional, others in his view clearly wished to see this global report become a compendium of country situations. He was concerned that some would consider the global report as providing the "teeth" that some felt the ILO currently lacked, and this might place labour standards in a position that most governments would like to avoid. If technical assistance was the aim of the report, there were other means at the ILO's disposal such as the Governing Body Committee on Technical Cooperation and the multidisciplinary teams. He would like to see the global report dropped as it violated the basic right of every individual or nation not to be subject to double scrutiny.

94. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Government of his own country, felt that the follow-up should be in line with the objectives of the Declaration. It should be promotional in nature and avoid the examination of individual cases. The dual system of reports was acceptable but it should not end up being complaints-based. There should be an additional reference in the text of the follow- up to the effect that countries would be provided the opportunity to let their concerns be known, that an examination should be made of the difficulties countries were encountering, and that appropriate technical assistance should be provided.

95. The Government member of Canada, speaking on behalf of the Government of his own country, stressed that the follow-up should be both credible and effective. The follow-up procedures should inform member States and the international community on the situation of countries which had not ratified the fundamental standards. He noted that the French title of the Declaration and the annex used the expression "droits de l'homme" (rights of man), which should be replaced by a gender-neutral term such as "individual" or "human rights" ("droits de la personne" or "droits humains"). The follow-up should make it possible to assess trends in the application of constitutional principles and objectives contained in fundamental Conventions -- both in global and country-specific ways. This information would help the Office better target the constitutional and practical means at its disposal towards attaining the objectives contained in the Declaration. He believed that the present document reflected these points. Concerning the annual report, he supported the involvement of independent experts with credibility and credentials. The focus of discussions in the Governing Body should be on the significant progress -- or lack thereof -- made in the area in question, and the global report should provide information on progress, or lack of progress, in achieving the objectives of the Declaration both at global and country-specific levels. He also felt that those responsible for compiling reports should have access to other information than that gathered on a tripartite basis. He stressed that the global report should be discussed in such a way that it gained a high profile and that the plenary of the International Labour Conference should devote the necessary time to examine it.

96. The Government member of Lebanon stressed that article 19 of the Constitution already provided for a follow-up mechanism, and any follow-up within the framework of the Declaration should be based on this. A group of legal experts could examine the report and take into account efforts made by countries to implement principles contained in the Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia, and identify the assistance necessary to improve their capacity. In her view, an annual review would not be necessary because changes in legislation were not likely to take place every year, and besides this provision might contradict article 19 reports. With reference to the promotional and assistance-based vocation of the global report, she wondered what would happen if a country was not able to ratify a particular Convention.

97. The Government member of Finland associated himself with the statement made by the Government member of Canada, speaking on behalf of the IMEC group. He felt it was necessary to stress the need for a credible follow-up mechanism. There should be no fears that it would be a sort of legal surveillance.

98. The Government member of the United Kingdom believed that there should be a credible and effective follow-up mechanism to the Declaration; without it, the Declaration would remain "a collection of fine words". The follow-up should be designed to promote the implementation of the Declaration and to strengthen the ILO's supervisory machinery. She felt that the mechanism proposed by the Office fulfilled these criteria. The proposed follow-up procedure under article 19(5)(e) of the Constitution was not new but the proposal was to make more effective use of it. With respect to Point 1.2.3, her country preferred the option proposed in the IMEC statement -- namely, for a number of independent experts to help the Office prepare the report to the Governing Body for discussion in the Governing Body. These experts could be an expansion of the Committee of Experts, and need not only be legal experts. Since the Declaration of Philadelphia also related to development, an expert in development issues, for instance, might be quite appropriate. The United Kingdom also attached great importance to the global report as it would provide an opportunity to generate funds and focus technical cooperation and assistance where it was most needed. Fears had been raised about the issue of double jeopardy. The report should take due account of the efforts made by countries towards meeting their obligations and thus identify the difficulties they faced; this would enable the ILO to target assistance effectively. She felt that the report should be discussed at the highest possible level at the ILO's annual Conference -- preferably in a special sitting -- and this should be pursued at the following November session of the Governing Body to ensure that the ILO's budgetary provision reflected the conclusions of that discussion.

99. The Government member of Egypt felt that the follow-up mechanism should not be used as a tool for condemnation but as a means to identify ways of providing assistance. He felt that the word "mechanism" should be deleted in the title as this implied a supervisory mechanism. The title of the annex should be brought into line with that of the Declaration. Concerning Point 1.1.1, he felt that reference should be made to "providing necessary assistance to enable member States to observe the principles enshrined in the Constitution". Concerning Point 1.2.1, reference should merely be made to the content of article 23. He agreed with some earlier speakers that the reports should be examined in a promotional manner by the Committee of Experts for submission to the Conference and that therefore Points 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 could be deleted. He was of the opinion that the global report might better be termed "overview" or "panorama" to make its objectives clearer. Point 2.1.1 should be reworded to make it clear that the report was purely promotional and global rather than country-specific, and that it would aim at determining areas in which technical assistance was required. He felt that the word "each" in Point 2.1.2 should be changed to "one" and that the text between brackets in Point 2.2.1 were unacceptable, since it sought to reintroduce ideas that had been rejected in earlier discussions. He also advocated the deletion of Point 2.2.2 as the global report should be annexed to the Report of the Director-General to the Conference, and that the Conference should take note of it.

100. The Government member of France, agreeing with the IMEC group's statement, wished to stress that the Declaration and the follow-up were integrally linked since adherence to principles had to be translated into action. The best action in his view would be ratification of Conventions. For those who were not able to do this immediately it was necessary to measure their efforts and to encourage them. This necessarily required reviewing the situation. He was not in favour of following the classic route of the Committee of Experts and the Committee on the Application of Standards since these dealt with ratified Conventions. The proposed follow-up envisaged two categories of reports, based on whether countries had ratified Conventions or not. The global report would provide an overall picture without repeating the technical content of the annual reports, which would be a simple extension of existing reports. The global report would measure progress achieved and note areas for improvement. He recalled that many were concerned to increase technical assistance in this respect, the modalities of which would depend on the Governing Body. He wondered about offering technical assistance regarding particular Conventions at the time of examining the annual reports. Should that alternative be chosen, Point 1.1.1 would have to be amended. He was in favour of the draft follow-up which was light and promotional, respected the sovereignty of individual States and was in conformity with the Constitution.

101. The Government member of the United States, while considering the Declaration to be extremely important and profound, felt it would be meaningless without a follow-up mechanism. At this crucial moment in the ILO's history, it was important to have a credible, meaningful and effective follow-up on which there seemed to be wide agreement between the Workers and Employers and many others. Not succeeding in this area would be unthinkable. He felt that both reports contemplated in the annex were essential. With respect to Point 1.2.3, his Government felt that a group of experts appointed by the Governing Body was the most appropriate alternative. With respect to Point 2.2.1, the brackets should be removed as the Director-General should in fact draw on all relevant information. It was vital that the global report should be conducted on an annual basis at the Conference and that there should be a working group of the Conference to consider the implications of the report. This report should have a significant impact on the ILO's technical assistance programmes. The promotional aspect was essential, but the report would also have to be country-specific. A number of fears had been expressed about double scrutiny, but he saw no basis for these misgivings. The proposed mechanism would not create a new supervisory machinery but would use the existing machinery. He rejected the argument being made about protectionism and the Declaration and follow-up mechanism as sophistry, and said those opposing the effort posed the far greater danger of protectionism because they were threatening to undermine a broad consensus for trade liberalization. In this era of globalization, there was a concern for the rights of workers and for social justice, and in his view the liberalization of trade and labour standards mutually reinforced each other. If this exercise had been about protectionism, he stated categorically that his Government would be opposed to it. The United States was committed to this Declaration and its follow-up, but it must yield meaningful results. The work achieved here would determine to a very great extent the future of the Organization.

102. The Government member of Switzerland, agreeing with the IMEC group's statement, noted that the Declaration and its follow-up were integrally linked. The follow-up needed to be credible in order to improve the image and transparency of the ILO. The follow-up mechanism, based on article 19 reports as well as the global reports, needed to be as democratic as the existing system of the Committee on the Application of Standards. He felt that the Conference should discuss the global report in a special sitting and that the Director-General should then bring it to the attention of the Governing Body, which would decide on measures of support and cooperation for promoting fundamental rights.

103. The Government member of Sweden associated himself with the statement made by the Government member of Canada, speaking on behalf of the IMEC group. Without a follow-up there was no need for a Declaration; indeed, if there was not a meaningful and effective follow-up, his country would have to vote against the Declaration. Referring to Part IV in the Declaration of Philadelphia and to the words "international trade" he felt that the proposed Declaration did not contradict this. He felt that the Office text provided a good basis for discussion, and would be glad to rely on the Office's expertise to prepare a new draft more acceptable to all.

104. The Government member of Germany, while affirming his full support for the statement of the IMEC group, noted one divergence from the statement of the United States as to paragraph 2.2.2 of the annex, which had included a suggestion for a special committee of the Conference to be convened to review the global report. Such a development could be logistically difficult for member States with smaller delegations which might find it difficult to staff another Conference committee. Recalling his earlier statement that the purpose of the Declaration and follow-up was to produce as comprehensive a picture as possible of the different ways of guaranteeing fundamental rights in the world, he wondered whether only new article 19 reports from non-ratifying countries would serve that purpose. As an example, he noted that Convention No. 29 had still not been ratified by 29 States; in his view, a report on the state of forced labour in only those 29 countries would not give an accurate picture of forced labour in the world. Second, he explained that although the new procedure would not be based on a system of complaint or appeal, the global report would have to note where, how and to whom assistance should be provided since its purpose was to identify the difficulties in order to address them.

105. The Government member of Uganda stated his support for the proposed follow-up but believed that it should proceed in the context of article 19(5)(e) and be promotional. He noted that no additional responsibility should be added for member States, and that both the annual and four-yearly reports should be examined by the Governing Body and submitted to the Conference for its consideration. He concluded that the Organization should encourage the non-ratifying member States to seek technical assistance on request.

106. The Government member of Belgium, associating himself with the statement of Canada on behalf of the IMEC group, said that the follow-up was the essential corollary to the Declaration and would strengthen its authority. The mechanism should take into account the existing procedural obligations within the ILO, and there should be no duplication or new form of monitoring or control. In his view, the mechanism should allow for the periodic examination of the situation in member States to facilitate the effective assistance of the ILO.

107. The Government member of Brazil recalled his Government's support for the Declaration from the beginning of the process, and its desire for a meaningful and effective mechanism to promote fundamental rights. Towards that end, he believed that it would be necessary to eliminate a number of ambiguities: (i) in Point 1.2.1, he agreed with earlier comments highlighting the imprecision which needed to be resolved; (ii) regarding Point 1.2.3, a clear distinction should be made between the examination of obligations derived from the ratification of Conventions and the non-binding effect of the mechanism being examined here, and he would therefore favour the selection of a rapporteur from the Governing Body; (iii) regarding Point 1.2.4, a certain ambiguity existed as to how countries which were the subject of review would be heard in the Governing Body and what type of measures should be taken to enable Members not part of the Governing Body to take part actively when matters involving them were being considered; (iv) in Point 2.1.1, the word "define" should be replaced with "propose"; (v) regarding Point 2.2.1, the bracketed language raised doubts and was in need of a more careful formulation of what action the Director-General could take. With regard to the global report, the Government member of Brazil stated his preference for a discussion in the Governing Body with a view to proposing specific policies for the Office. The Governing Body had better tools than the Conference for an exercise requiring an in-depth and meaningful discussion. From that discussion, he proposed that the results be submitted to the Conference for discussion in plenary. On a more general note, he stated that the mechanism should assist States in achieving better implementation of fundamental rights, and the text should make this objective clear. He also supported the addition of a specific reference to avoidance of double scrutiny or double jeopardy. In his view, there was still a doubt as to the final significance and uses to which the report would be put, and the text should make clear that the mechanism should focus on assistance and not criticize States.

108. The Government member of Colombia noted that the purpose of the follow-up was to promote the principles in the Constitution and Declaration of Philadelphia. She stated that the application of the follow-up should be based on international cooperation and technical assistance, not on complaints or criticisms of member States. The global report should serve exclusively to develop a plan of action to help member States. This action programme should be promotional and extended to apply to ratifying countries as well. In her view, the global report should be subject to the decision of the Conference, without prejudice to the Governing Body acting as a filter. She pointed out that this method would allow participation of all Members of the Organization in establishing the best way of promoting ILO principles, and should be used as the sole basis for producing an action programme for a four- year period. The Government member of Ecuador agreed with the position of Colombia and Mexico on the follow-up, as did the Government member of Panama, speaking on behalf of Central America and the Dominican Republic.

109. The Government member of Sudan raised two points. First, the Declaration should not impose new responsibilities on member States, including responsibilities arising from the follow-up. Second, the Declaration should be promotional and phrased accordingly. In that regard, he observed that there was some overlap in reports applying directly to fundamental rights and he believed that member States' commitments should be channelled through the current follow-up mechanism. To be effective, the reports should be linked to technical information, which should be set out extremely clearly in Point 1.1. Furthermore, he observed that Point 1.1 should make it clear that no country would be subject to double scrutiny and, in that regard, the annual report should go to the Committee of Experts and then the Conference Committee. He did not find it necessary to amend Points 1.2.3 or 1.2.4. As for the global report, it should be of a promotional nature, relating to the development of legislation and setting out problems encountered in the countries concerned. The global report should establish the Organization's responsibility for encouraging countries to respect the fundamental principles and the report should be submitted to the Conference for its assessment. The information in the report should be based on information collected by the ILO through its multidisciplinary teams in all countries. He saw no need for the bracketed references in Points 2.2.1 or 2.2.2. He believed that, in addressing the global report, the Conference should work on the basis of consensus.

110. The Government member of Italy referred to his earlier intervention in which he summarized his opinions regarding the follow-up, and wished to dispel several misunderstandings about which his IMEC colleagues had already given exhaustive explanations. First, the annual follow-up addressed fundamental rights and was to use existing machinery, which he deemed to be more than sufficient. For ratifying countries, there would be nothing new; they would go on through the usual procedures. Naturally, the follow-up mechanism referred to non-ratifying countries, for whom article 19(5)(e) reports had already been used to report to the Director-General and then to the Governing Body. In his view, independent experts could be appointed by the Governing Body in case it needed advice. Second, the global report was to cover all reports both of ratifying and non-ratifying countries. That general picture would by its very nature be promotional, and it should serve to assess the effectiveness of ILO assistance and to inform constituents on how far the assistance could go, and where it needed redirecting or further resources allocated. Indeed, he viewed the global report as a link between the Governing Body and the Conference. Regarding Point 2.2.2, the Conference should examine the report in the full or a part of the plenary.

111. The Government member of the Russian Federation stated that the follow-up was needed to have a complete Declaration. He noted that reaching consensus on the Declaration and follow-up would serve well the purpose of consolidating the rights of workers, which was one of the main aims of the Organization. However, he believed that the mechanism should be based on already existing procedures of the ILO. The global report should give an overall view of general events in progress toward compliance with fundamental rights, but he thought that the apprehensions of negative repercussions should not be disregarded. He suggested that general criteria and rules for drawing up the global report be worked out on the basis of existing procedures under article 19(5)(e). The possibility of using other kinds of information from reliable international sources should be excluded. A rapporteur from the Conference members would, in his view, be expedient. Under Point 2.2.2, which gave a fairly broad range of scenarios or versions, he preferred the possibility of discussing the global report in a special session of the Conference. He concluded that the provisions in practical terms would allow the Organization to play a prominent role and would justify the expectations of working people to better their lives through better working conditions and universal guarantees of social justice.

112. The Government member of India, associating himself with the statement made by Japan on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, mentioned that the information gathered for the annual review should be based on articles 19 and 22 and that the examination of the report should be based on the existing machinery. He recalled that India had always been in favour of the global report, as it had stated in the Governing Body in November 1997. However, he found that the parameters in the current text were completely different than what had been envisaged, which had been a positive approach to assessing and defining needs and programmes and helping the Office to draw inferences and assist in overcoming hurdles. Specifically, as to Point 2.2.1, he stated that the bracketed language went beyond the Constitution and established practice and that the Director-General's Report should be based on reports submitted under articles 19(5)(e) and 22 of the Constitution and the information provided under these reports should suffice. As to Point 2.2.2, the proposed report should be annexed to the Report of the Director-General for submission to the Conference.

113. The Government member of Norway, associating himself with the statement made by Canada on behalf of the IMEC group, noted that the Declaration, while important, would be of little value without a credible and effective follow-up. His delegation accepted the main concept of the follow-up as described in the annex. He found the global report particularly important since it would review trends and progress at both global and country levels. If the global report was to serve as a basis for promotional measures directed at individual member States, it should be discussed in a special sitting of the Conference and sufficient time should be allotted for that discussion. His delegation did not find it equally important to have the report discussed at the Governing Body first.

114. The Government member of the Republic of Korea reiterated his position that there should be no new supervisory mechanism which would give rise to a new burden of reporting by member States. In that regard, his delegation supported the views expressed by the Government member of Japan on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group. The Declaration and follow-up were aimed at promoting and enhancing respect for fundamental principles rather than targeting specific cases for criticism. Amendments to the draft text should be in line with those objectives.

115. The Government member of the Netherlands fully supported the statement of Canada, on behalf of the IMEC group. The purpose of the global report would be to review trends and progress at the global and country levels and to provide a report to the international community to inform it about ILO progress in that regard. He believed the report, which should lead to programmes of action, was needed in order to catalyse global assistance, which could best be done by creating strong political support. In that regard, he recalled the high political profile of the International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC), which had resulted in substantial extra-budgetary financial support only once it became operational. He believed the report needed to be reviewed in the Conference at a special sitting.

116. The Government member of South Africa stated that the follow-up was an essential element of the Declaration, and that there must be an effective and meaningful follow-up, to give life to the principles and values enshrined in the solemn Declaration. It was paramount that the follow-up should be based on the Constitution of the ILO and, in particular, article 19(5)(e) for non-ratifying countries and article 22 for ratifying countries. He deemed that the suggestion in Point 1.2.3 of the use of the Committee of Experts for filtering purposes was technically flawed since the Declaration dealt with fundamental principles and values of the ILO rather than Conventions, and the only precedents to date for the Committee of Experts applied to Conventions themselves. Moreover, he believed that the idea of rapporteur(s) selected from Governing Body members could bring into question the impartiality of the process and that the most prudent way to proceed would be to use a group of experts appointed for the purpose by the Governing Body. In his view, the global report was a necessary innovation at the heart of the process since it would serve to assess trends and situations in both non-ratifying and ratifying countries. He foresaw that, for the first time in the history of the ILO, trends on fundamental labour standards would be put in a proper global perspective regardless of ratification of standards. Such an effort should be the subject of a tripartite discussion in the Governing Body and, most importantly, in a special sitting at the Conference. He emphasized that the global report could not be left exclusively to the Governing Body.

117. The Government member of Myanmar supported the Asia and Pacific group fully. He believed that, to be successful, the follow-up must be fair and equitable, and must operate with the consent of all Members. In his view, saying that there must not be double scrutiny was not enough; rather, the text must show ipso facto that there was no double scrutiny. The follow-up must stand the test of time and circumstances, and meet the needs of all Members of the ILO.

118. The Government member of Cuba noted that the follow-up should be of a promotional nature and not be duplicative, but rather should be an important component of existing mechanisms, allowing technical assistance to member States to be more effective, rather than creating other supervisory mechanisms. She associated her delegation with the statements made by Colombia, Mexico and Ecuador in this respect.

119. The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated that the Declaration was of great importance for his delegation and was a symbolic and necessary step at the end of this twentieth century that had witnessed wars, genocide and social injustice and yet had felt the need to advocate social progress and human values. It was important that the Declaration be adopted by consensus, and the follow-up would need to be compatible with what everyone expected from the Declaration. He considered that, if the Declaration was a promotional instrument designed to reaffirm fundamental principles and rights, the nature of the follow-up would also need to be promotional and this fact should be mentioned explicitly. Similarly, if the global report was a promotional overview and its objective was to assess needs and define priorities for ILO assistance and technical cooperation, those aspects should also be explicitly mentioned in the text. To overcome the concern that many had stated regarding double scrutiny, he noted that the text should state that the global report would not include deliberations of the supervisory bodies which, by definition, were to supervise compliance with ratified Conventions. In his view, if the text were clear and more explicit as to the objectives of the global report and its content, a number of the existing concerns would be answered.

120. The Worker members addressed several specific questions in order to facilitate the adoption of the follow-up. First, as to the question of double jeopardy, they said that the annual review would be through article 19 procedures and should therefore be submitted, in the final instance, to the Governing Body. Conversely, the global report could go directly to Conference discussion, not to the Governing Body. In this way, there would be no double jeopardy factor at the Conference. Second, as to the question of the use of experts, the Worker members noted that three possibilities had been envisaged: an expert committee (which, they noted, had received the support of the Workers, the Asia and Pacific group, and some other governments); the Committee of Experts which would analyse article 19 reports (which had received the support of the IMEC group and some other governments); a direct review prior to a political discussion, without referring to a group of experts, which only the Employer members seemed to favour. The Worker members stated furthermore that they would be willing to accept, in a spirit of compromise, either the option of the Committee of Experts or another group of expert. Third, as to the question of the global report, the Worker members were concerned that a high-profile discussion should be combined with concrete outputs, and to safeguard existing machinery. They suggested that the process would involve putting an item on the agenda of the Conference for a special sitting. The Government member of the United States had proposed a group, or committee, of the Conference but the Government member of Germany had been right to point out the logistical problems this would pose for delegations with only a few members; therefore, perhaps discussion in the plenary was preferable. Special sittings of the Conference took on certain political connotations, and the Worker members were attracted by the suggestion of the Government member of Italy to have a separate part of the plenary to review the global report. A discussion in the Conference was needed so that the outputs of that discussion would help the Governing Body after the Conference session to set priorities and deal with the shortcomings identified by the global report. In other words, unlike the Employer members, the Worker members did not support a pre-Conference discussion at the Governing Body, but rather a scenario in which the Governing Body would afterwards reflect on the discussion of the Conference to establish priorities. They clarified that, nonetheless, they could accept the suggestions of the United States, the IMEC group, Italy and the Netherlands.

121. The Employer members found the discussion illuminating and helpful, and noted the concerns of governments as to how the annual and global reports were in fact going to work and their aims and objectives. They recalled their earlier suggestion that language in the text at the beginning of the annex could address the issues of duplication and double jeopardy or they could be addressed in Point 5. The opening text could also address technical assistance and cooperation and to provide umbrella language for what followed. In their view, the Worker members had misrepresented their position on the filtering and analysis mechanism under the annual report, and there now seemed to be a clear broad consensus for some kind of expert panel. The Employer members did not find it important whether those experts came from the Governing Body or not but rather felt that such experts should inspire confidence and be independent, whether they were individual experts or a panel; but they should be distinct from the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. With regard to the global report, the Employer members noted that various ILO reports repeated information found in other reports, and that, as a legal term, "double jeopardy" usually involved some legal finding or assessment of liability. In contrast, the Employer members noted that in the context of the ILO, Members were dealing with dialogue, technical assistance, and the promotion of standards, certainly not along the lines of liability in any legal sense. In fact the proposed Declaration was concerned with something far more basic, i.e. whether countries were achieving goals and objectives of commitment to fundamental rights, regardless of whether they were ratifying or non-ratifying countries. With regard to Point 2.1.2, the Employer members had suggested an amendment to make clear that the issues under that review were also not taken up under the global mechanism. However, the Employer members noted that the Government of Pakistan had used their suggestion in a hypothetical example which they found inappropriate. The global report was to be a reflection of trends, and within those trends there undoubtedly would be country-specific reports since a trend could not be determined without examining a range of examples. The Employer members acknowledged that it might well be that any country could be mentioned regardless of whether a matter concerning that particular country was before the Committee of Experts or the Committee on the Application of Standards.

122. The Government member of Mexico recalled the stress put by many in the discussion on the idea that the follow-up should be credible and effective, and asked whether the procedures provided under articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution represented a credible and effective mechanism. If they did not, then the efforts and endeavours should be targeted on analysing these provisions and amending them. If they did, then in his view there was no need to adopt other mechanisms.

123. The Chairperson had asked the Office to prepare a revised draft of the follow-up, based on the Committee's earlier general discussion. In introducing the new text, he urged a conceptual, rather than an amendments-based discussion. Where choices had to be made, the Office had been guided by the majority of views. The proposed new text was as follows:

0. Overall purpose

1. Annual follow-up concerning non-ratified fundamental Conventions

2. Global report

3. It is understood that:

124. The Worker members reiterated that it was politically important to have a follow-up to the Declaration and they could accept the document in its totality subject to the following considerations. First, in a number of instances, the word "may" occurred, for example, in Points 1.2.3 and 2.2.2. which they found confusing since it could imply either a discretionary or mandatory directive, and they wished to make clear that the mandatory meaning was intended. Second, they believed that the first article 19 reports needed to be more substantial than the subsequent four-yearly reports, but did not believe an explicit reference in the text was needed in that regard.

125. The Employer members commended the secretariat for reflecting comprehensively the clear majority view in a new text, and accepted the text subject to clarification as to how certain provisions might operate. They reiterated the Worker members' desire to see the structure left intact. In particular, they understood that the reference in Point 1.2.1 to observations by employers' and workers' organizations referred to representative organizations as defined under article 3(5) of the Constitution. They contrasted the use of the discretionary word "may" in Point 1.2.3 with their belief that the filtering mechanism was not considered optional in the earlier draft or in earlier discussions on the follow-up. Despite the repetition of the words "in particular" in Point 2.2.1, they understood that the primary basis of information for the global report would be the article 19 and 22 reports and, to the extent that other information might play a part, it would be reliable information from the constituents of the ILO itself.

126. The Government member of Canada, speaking on behalf of the IMEC group, agreed that the revised follow-up reflected the discussions among governments and social partners over the past year. She recalled that the key parameters were: an effective follow-up procedure; a more systematic review of the situation in countries that had not ratified the fundamental Conventions; a promotional follow-up that would help to identify areas where the ILO could assist member States in their efforts; a way of assessing overall progress and trends on fundamental principles and rights; and a basis in existing procedures, which were adjusted to meet the promotional objectives of the Declaration. She believed that the text met the concerns expressed in the earlier discussion by governments and the social partners -- namely, no new legal obligations, a non-complaints-based process, no double jeopardy, no new supervisory machinery, no undermining of existing supervisory machinery, and no cumbersome new procedures. She noted that the secretariat had done an excellent job in taking all these parameters into account yet proposing an effective follow-up. She suggested that the term "simplified procedures" replace the term "simple arrangements" in Point 1.1.1. In Point 1.2.1, suggestions on areas for technical assistance and advisory services could also be part of the information provided in the reports. Under Point 1.2.3, the group of independent experts, which should be separate from existing supervisory machinery, could assist in drawing attention to areas where technical assistance and advisory services could assist the efforts of member States. Point 1.2.4 was an important adjustment supported fully by the IMEC group. She would prefer a more explicit reference in Point 2.1.1 to the global report as, among other things, an information and communications tool which could assist in mobilizing external resources. While welcoming the reference in Point 2.2.2 to the concrete follow-up by the Governing Body as an essential link to identifying the needs for effective technical assistance programmes, she sought clarification that the reference to the Governing Body was a procedural matter and did not imply a substantive discussion of the global report in the Governing Body.

127. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, supported the addition of the introductory paragraphs (0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 in the draft text) to clarify the purpose of the follow-up. He noted that some concerns remained relating to his earlier statements that the follow-up should be promotional, non-complaints-based, and without double scrutiny or criticisms of specific country situations. He emphasized that his group had come with a genuine desire and intent to negotiate in good faith and regretted that there had been repeated negative references by the Workers' spokesperson to the Government members, his group, as well as to individual countries. He further stated that such negative comments implying bad faith simply on the basis of differences of opinion were inappropriate and unacceptable.

128. The Government member of the United Kingdom believed that a wide consensus covering all regions supported the work of the ILO towards better realization of labour standards, and a meaningful follow-up was an essential component of the Declaration. He recalled a statement by his Minister in the plenary that it was essential for the credibility of the ILO as the appropriate international organization to reach agreement in this Conference on a meaningful and substantive Declaration and follow-up, and that failure to do so would bring consequences that would not serve the Organization's interest, including the possibility other organizations would address labour standards. He deemed the revised follow-up, in particular, to have met all three considerations raised by the Government of Japan, on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group -- that the Declaration be promotional, have technical assistance at its heart, and not be complaints-based.

129. The Government member of Chile acknowledged the secretariat's effort in redrafting the follow-up, and stated that the concepts of credibility and effectiveness should steer the proceedings of the Committee over and above the isolated requirements emphasized by particular groups. The introduction stressed promotion, referred to the lack of double jeopardy and highlighted the importance of recourse to existing systems. He welcomed the flexibility which the word "may" brought, and noted that the modalities provided the necessary procedural safeguards needed by certain countries. He viewed the global report as universal and in a dynamic perspective and should provide an overall, comprehensive view of the Organization and its effectiveness. The repetition of the expression "in particular" in Point 2.2.1 was not inappropriate but rather highlighted the use to be made of the reports and, similarly, the word "may" in Points 2.2.2, read together with Point 3, implied that the report would be examined by the Governing Body and that the constituents would have the opportunity of intervening. He concluded by supporting the document even though it did not entirely reflect what his delegation would have wished.

130. The Government member of Sweden associated himself with the IMEC group's statement, noting that the document was a constructive compromise. The Government member of Finland also associated himself with the IMEC group's statement, saying that room should be left for the evolution of modalities and that the secretariat's revised text achieved such a balance. The Government member of the United States, associating himself with the positions expressed by the IMEC group as well as the Worker and Employer members, noted that, while improvements could be made in the text, his delegation supported the draft as an equitable balance of points of view put forward by all concerned. The Government member of Hungary stated his support for the document as redrafted and expressed appreciation for the Worker and Employer members' willingness to compromise. Supporting the text and affiliating himself with the IMEC group's position, the Government member of Poland said that the goal of the follow-up, as a promotional mechanism to promote core labour standards, could not be opposed by any government. If all Members cherished the rights listed in Point 3 of the draft Declaration, it seemed logical in his view that agreement could be reached on the follow-up. The Government member of Argentina stated that the follow-up should enable the Declaration to be operational; in his view, the specific objectives of the Declaration, along with the limiting criteria noted earlier and the emphasis on the use of the institutional resources of the ILO, were appropriately incorporated in the revised text.

131. The Government member of France supported the draft text as representing considerable progress, particularly the introduction which clearly set the general objective and overall purpose, and the strong emphasis on assistance in the new draft. The Government member of Germany, associating himself with the comments made by the Government member of Canada on behalf of the IMEC group, found that the Office's new version of the follow-up, thanks to its new introductory paragraphs, dispelled many doubts. The Government member of Denmark associated himself with the comments made by the IMEC group and considered this a satisfactory compromise.

132. The Government member of Namibia would have preferred to see the text refer to the Social Summit as well as the ILO Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia. The references to technical assistance could be enhanced by the reference to "technical cooperation". He requested further clarification as to what would be the significance if the word "may" were replaced by "shall" or "will". The Government member of the Democratic Republic of the Congo associated himself with his colleague from Namibia and congratulated the secretariat on the report. He pointed out an error in the French version and suggested some linguistic redrafting. The Government member of China supported the positive statement of purpose and scope in the new text, which emphasized promotional activities based on existing procedures; however, she regretted that the substantive content of the follow-up was not consistent with its overall purpose. Although her Government insisted that there be no new obligations, no double scrutiny, and no double jeopardy, the annual review seemed to be leading to a new supervisory mechanism outside the existing ones. If she understood correctly, the follow-up action in Point 1.1.2 mentioned four areas of fundamental rights rather than one out of four, as earlier foreseen. This seemed to go beyond the stipulations in article 19(5)(e) of the Constitution, and added more obligations on member States. She disagreed with the procedural modalities in Point 2.2.2 which would have the global report submitted to the Governing Body and discussed in a special sitting of the Conference, based on articles 19 and 22 reports, since that would involve discussion of those reports on two different occasions. The Government member of Brazil declared that this would the first time that each Member of the Organization would recognize that it was in this Organization, not elsewhere, that the application, supervision and promotion of labour standards were to take place, which in his view would be to the advantage of governments and social partners. Associating himself with the sentiments expressed by the Government member of Namibia, he preferred that technical cooperation be more strongly emphasized, and understood that no new supervisory systems were being created.

133. The Legal Adviser noted that all the comments had been extremely useful; indeed they would help the Governing Body, to which they would be sent together with the text of the follow-up to apply the provisions of the follow-up. He had focused on the doubts that the follow-up might give rise to a "new mechanism"; and a new mechanism implied a new procedure which did not derive from present provisions of the Constitution. However, the draft follow-up was based on an existing procedure under article 19 and only adapted some modalities of the procedure decided upon by the Governing Body in 1995. This also applied to the global report which would only consist of a new part (and there had been other examples in the past) of the Director-General's Report. As regards the question of double scrutiny, he explained that respect of the principle of double jeopardy merely implied that the same person or country could not be judged twice for the same deeds; however, the draft follow-up excluded this possibility because, on the one hand, the Declaration did not seek to judge countries but to promote rights and, on the other hand, the follow-up stipulated that any matters coming under the purview of established supervisory machinery would be automatically referred to such machinery. As concerns the meaning of the word "may" in the English text, it could be taken to mean that the Governing Body, taking into account the proceedings of the Committee as well as the text, would be required to implement the procedures provided for in the follow-up. In reply to the Workers' question on the need to establish a first annual report asking States for more substantial information on their law and practice, he pointed out that the procedure adopted in 1995 -- the result of which was before the Conference for the first time this year -- would be maintained for the four categories until each had been examined once; this would provide a relatively detailed basis for examination of subsequent annual reports under the follow-up. In reply to a question about the meaning of the submission of the global report "through" the Governing Body to the Conference, he stated that, in order to find a compromise between different points of view, the text intended to leave open the procedure of going through the Governing Body without necessarily involving a discussion, so as to avoid duplication between the Governing Body and the Conference. Rather, he pointed out that the Governing Body would intervene after the Conference in order to draw practical lessons from the discussions at the Conference. Concerning the expression "special report" to the Conference, this was to indicate that this report would be separate from the general part so that it would not necessarily be subject to the limits under articles 12 and 14 of the Standing Orders of the Conference, which, if applied, would impose a more rigid procedure of discussion of the Director-General's Report. The idea here was to provide the Conference with a greater degree of flexibility in terms of discussion of the global report.

134. The Government member of Lebanon associated herself with the Asia and Pacific group. She wondered why reference was made to "established practice" in Point 1.2.1 and to "established procedures" in Point 2.2.1, when it was supposed to be evident that the Declaration was based on the Constitution. She also wondered why the annual report would be reviewed by the Governing Body (Point 1.2.2). She wondered what were the grounds for these revisions, and whether this report, like the global report, would result in a mobilization of resources. The Government member of Algeria expressed reservations concerning Point 2.2.1 regarding the report that would be established by the Director-General, to the extent that this Point might introduce the possibility of using sources of information other than those provided under article 22 of the Consititution.

135. The Government member of Pakistan had no conceptual problems with the annual review. The Declaration was intended to reaffirm basic principles while removing the immunity of some countries which had not ratified the core Conventions. Nobody would disagree that the follow-up should be promotional, non-country-specific, non-case-specific, non-complaints-based and non-punitive. He therefore suggested adding these concepts after the word "nature" in the first line of Point 0.2 so that intentions would be entirely clear. He also suggested the following changes in Point 0.2: the words "upon their request" should be added at the end of the first sentence; the words "or duplicate them" should be added after "their functioning"; and the words "examined or re-examined" should be deleted and replaced by the word "included". He thought it important that the Committee of Experts should be the filtering mechanism for the annual report, which could take the form of a traditional general survey. He also suggested that the last part of the sentence in Point 1.2.1 should be deleted (from "to be supplemented" to the end) and replaced by "duly taking into account article 23 of the Constitution". Turning to the global report, he stressed that it should be promotional and non-case-specific, referring to comments concerning technical cooperation made by the Government member of Japan, on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, at the April 1998 consultations. On Point 2.2.1 he had three basic concerns: (a) the dual reference to "in particular" might authorize extra-constitutional ways of gathering sources of information; (b) there was an ambiguity about who would determine what information was relevant; and (c) if the last part of the sentence was retained, i.e. "article 22 of the Constitution and the subsequent deliberations on them", there would be no need for Point 2.2.2.

136. The Government member of Italy associated himself with the Government member of Canada, speaking on behalf of the IMEC group. He felt that the new version of the follow-up did much to dispel any apprehensions. The Legal Adviser provided assurances that it was strictly promotional and that the procedure was not to be complaints-based. Reference was also made to technical cooperation in Points 0.2 and 2.1.1. He felt that the global report was indeed a special report and should be dealt with by the Conference as a special item. The Government member of Belgium, associating himself with the statement made by the IMEC group, approved of the new text of the follow-up, especially after the clarifications by the Legal Adviser. The Government member of Switzerland was satisfied that the secretariat had succeeded in reaching a compromise which provided an effective and credible follow-up, which was his country's precondition for support for the Declaration. He associated himself with the IMEC group's statement, and repeated that his country felt strongly about the participation of non-Governing Body members in the follow-up. He felt that it was extremely important that there should be no preliminary discussion of the global report in the Governing Body before it went to the Conference, where all member States should have the possibility of participating fully in the discussion.

137. The Government member of the Netherlands wished to associate himself with the IMEC group and felt that the annex to the Declaration was clear, especially as the Legal Adviser's suggestions had been incorporated.

138. The Government member of Egypt believed that despite a number of new and positive elements, the concerns of his delegation had not been completely allayed. He believed that the words "in particular", used twice in Point 2.2.1, should be deleted, as this opened the door to other procedures. He also believed that the last part of the second sentence in this point should be deleted as this would eliminate the need for Point 2.2.2. The reference to the Governing Body should be clarified in Point 2.2.2; its role should be strictly procedural. He also objected to the global report being the subject of a special sitting and suggested adding after the words "plans of action" the words "geared to mobilize the necessary technical assistance". Finally, he wished to stress that his delegation did not agree to the establishment of any new supervisory mechanisms.

139. The Government member of the Republic of Korea agreed with the Asia and Pacific group that the follow-up should be promotional and function as an information and communications tool. He shared the concern expressed by other delegates that the application of the Declaration might, if the follow-up were not reasonable, become a major aspect of ILO activities instead of being merely promotional. Therefore, it should be confined to observing global trends with regard to fundamental principles and not review specific country situations. He was concerned about submitting the global report "through the Governing Body"; if the Governing Body were involved in the procedure, this would constitute a double discussion.

140. The Government member of South Africa stated that the new follow-up had dealt with many of the concerns expressed in previous discussions. He agreed with the Government members of Brazil and Namibia that the reference to technical cooperation should be strengthened in Point 0.2.

141. The Government member of Ethiopia agreed with the Government member of the Democratic Republic of the Congo as regards Point 2.2.2. The global report should be an annex to the Report of the Director-General and not a special report. It should be discussed "in any appropriate way" rather than "during a sitting". In referring to Point 2.2.1, he felt that referring to "subsequent deliberations" was tantamount to providing a carte blanche. He suggested a redrafting of Point 1.1.1 to read:

The Government member of Colombia preferred to address "technical cooperation" rather than the more limited concept of "technical assistance". He was also concerned with reference to Point 1.2.1, that the follow-up not go beyond the procedures provided for under the Constitution.

142. The Government member of Mexico agreed with the wording of Point 0.2 and the reference of Point 0.3 concerning recourse to the existing procedures which should serve as guidelines for the whole follow-up. He considered that Point 1.2.1 would entail changes in constitutional procedures. He expressed particular concern regarding reference to article 23 and established practice, since that article only required countries to send a copy of articles 19 and 22 reports to employers' and workers' organizations, and did not allow for employers' and workers' organizations to comment or make observations on these reports. On Point 1.2.3, he wondered which criteria would apply for appointing the group of experts; who would appoint them, who would review their work, and how much would the whole exercise cost? With regard to Point 2.1.1, action plans should only be undertaken upon request of the countries concerned. On Point 2.2.1, he referred to the fact that the global report would use information gathered under the annual follow-up for non-ratifying countries; however, it was not specified in the section referring to the annual reports that this information would lead to the global report. Finally, he had serious concerns on Point 3.2 since this seemed to be providing a blank check for a process as yet unknown.

143. The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic associated himself with the Asia and Pacific group and Egypt. He was concerned that by introducing an annual report, which would ask Members to draw up reports even if they had not ratified one or more of the fundamental Conventions, a new mechanism was being established. This was creating a situation in which Members would have to give account of their actions in three reports. Article 22 of the Constitution had set out all the procedures necessary.

144. The Government member of the Russian Federation stated that the Declaration and follow-up were based on existing mechanisms. He questioned whether the Governing Body was the appropriate body to review the global report, and suggested appointing special rapporteurs instead of a group of experts. He also suggested deleting the reference to "established procedures" in Point 2.2.1.

145. The Government member of India, welcoming the introductory section to the proposed annex -- which had been a suggestion of the Asia and Pacific group -- felt that there should be additional language in Point 0.2 to ensure that it was clear that the follow-up was not complaints-based. He also felt that Point 0.3 should state that the global report was based on reports under articles 19(5) and 22 of the Constitution. He would have liked more details on Point 1.2.3, as this new sort of filtering mechanism might lead to a targeting of specific countries. As regards Point 2.2.2, the global report could be annexed to the Director-General's Report and then submitted directly to the Conference.

146. The Worker members had been optimistic at the beginning of the debate that there was consensus but substantive amendments had been proposed during the past hour. They felt that most of the concerns of the Asia and Pacific group had been dealt with in the new version of the follow-up and could not understand why any country felt that procedures based on article 19 of the Constitution introduced a new mechanism. They did, however, agree with the Government member of India's concern on Point 2.2.2 and agreed that the Governing Body's role should be strictly procedural.

147. The Employer members felt that the discussion had revealed a consensus and that, despite some hesitation, the Committee seemed prepared to accept the new text on the whole. They felt that all major concerns had been addressed in one way or another; the introduction had stressed the promotional nature of the follow-up and the importance of technical assistance. As for the issue of double jeopardy, Point 2 dealt fully with these concerns. Nobody had actually questioned the structure of the follow-up. The Employer members again stressed that the group of experts should not be the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.

148. The Legal Adviser replied by providing clarifications on the following points. As regards the modalities of the annual follow-up and the global report, the relevant points of the text should be read in the light of those in the Preamble and in those relating to the purpose of each of these follow-ups. As to the meaning of the annual follow-up under Point 1.2.2, where reference was made to the "reports" submitted by Members and reviewed by the Governing Body, it was clear, under Point 1.1.1, that the purpose of the review was to assess the efforts made by Members which had not ratified the fundamental Conventions and that the discussion in the Governing Body should enable Members to exchange their respective experiences. Similarly, the purpose of the global report, which was clear under the Preamble and Point 2.1.1, would not be to judge any particular State but rather to assess the effectiveness of the Organization's action. The term "discussion" under Point 2.2.1, which might perhaps not be ideal, implied all the aspects of discussion on the reports submitted under article 22, which would also help target the Organization's technical assistance. Whilst acknowledging that any innovation naturally gave rise to apprehensions, he felt that these should be allayed by the content of Point 3.2 which allowed the Conference to assess whether the operation of the follow-up was in conformity with its objectives and, if necessary, to make corrections. It would be up to the Governing Body to decide the appropriate moment to make this assessment. Under Point 1.2.1, the term "established practice"was used to indicate that the Constitution was applied by independent bodies, such as the Committee of Experts, which had in the course of its work developed a practice that was not contested; this reference was therefore not intended to open the door for a revision of the Constitution. Under point 2.2.1, the term "established procedures" was a general reference to procedures providing guarantees of "due process" which, in addition to articles 19 and 22, concerned articles 24 and 26 of the Constitution. As regards the Special Report of the Director-General, he pointed out that the practice was to submit all of the reports to the Conference through the Governing Body. He insisted once again on the fact that making a reference to "special or separate report" would prevent articles 12 and 14 from being applied, thus leaving it up to the Conference to decide on the method of discussion.

149. Following the long preceding discussion, the Chairperson requested the Office to read a new version of the follow-up revised following the earlier comments, as follows: (1) in Point 0.2, after the word "Organization" add the words "through its technical cooperation activities"; (2) at the end of Point 0.3, replace the phrase "obtain the best results from these procedures" with "obtain the best results from the procedures carried out pursuant to the Constitution"; (3) in Point 1.1.1, replace the words "simple arrangements" with "simplified procedures"; (4) in Point 1.2.1, replace the words "to be supplemented by any observations which employers' and workers' organizations may make within the framework of" with the words "taking due account of"; (5) in Point 2.1.1, after "dynamic global picture", delete the words "of the most significant developments" and add, at the end of that point, after the words "in the form of action plans" the words "for technical cooperation"; (6) in Point 2.2.1, last sentence, replace the words "submitted under" with the words "as dealt with pursuant to"; (7) in Point 2.2.2, first sentence, replace "considered" with "submitted", delete "special" and the words "to be submitted through the Governing Body", and add after the words "its plans of action" the words "for technical cooperation"; and (8) in Point 3.2, after the word "review", replace "these provisions" with "the operation of this follow-up". In addition, the Office clarified that the meaning of the reference in Point 1.2.1 to article 23 of the Constitution and "established practice" included the requirement for governments to send copies of their reports to workers' and employers' organizations in their countries, and that the comments received from those organizations could be sent either directly to the Office, or transmitted via their governments.

150. The Worker members queried whether the reference to article 23 and "established practice" and the new language in Point 2.2.1 regarding "as dealt with pursuant to" suggested any change in meaning in that language. In response, the secretariat confirmed that no change as to article 23 or related practice was intended; nor was any change intended with regard to Point 2.2.1. The Employer members wanted confirmation as to how, under Point 2.2.2, the Governing Body would determine the manner in which the Conference dealt with the report, which could include other options such as having the Chairperson of the Governing Body report to the Conference or appointing a special committee of the Conference.

151. The Worker members, referring to a legal opinion expressed earlier, noted that the word "may" implied an obligation.

152. Replying to the question from the Employer members, the Legal Adviser noted that Point 2.2.2 of the text of the follow-up left it entirely open as to the form that the discussion at the Conference might take on the global report; the special sitting was only one of the possibilities. Turning to the question raised once again by the Worker members on the use of the word "may" under Point 2.2.2, the Legal Adviser explained that there was no contradiction between what he had just said on this point and what he had said on the use of the verb "to be" in the text of the follow-up. Indeed, under Point 2.2.2, there would be a special report discussed by the Conference. The form this discussion would take remained open, as clearly indicated by the words "or in any other appropriate way". The Legal Adviser pointed out to the Committee that this was not the first time that it had been decided to have a flexible procedure pertaining to the discussion of a special report; there were precedents showing that this flexibility had been widely used by the Conference. A case in point was a special report on apartheid which had first been discussed at a special sitting of the plenary of the Conference and then, subsequently, referred to an ad hoc tripartite committee.

153. The Government member of Canada supported the latest draft, noting that the statements regarding Point 0.2 made by a number of Governments, including Namibia, Brazil, Colombia and others, as well as the IMEC group, were reflected through more emphasis on technical cooperation. She further endorsed the procedural approach proposed by the Chairperson and suggested that the Committee was close to consensus on the follow-up. The Government member of Ireland supported the new draft of the follow-up, noting that certain of his concerns had been dealt with in the revisions and the Legal Adviser's explanations, and further asserting that no one's concerns could be fully allayed in an exercise involving divergent positions.

154. The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran noted that the Asia and Pacific group had some amendments after the earlier discussion and associated his delegation with those amendments. The Government member of Cuba noted that her statements regarding technical assistance were better reflected in the new draft. On Point 2.2.2, she expressed concern about the form of the debate of the overall report and stated that it should not be interpreted as a way of establishing a new mechanism or duplicating an existing one. Furthermore, in her view, the overall report should refer to global trends regarding fundamental principles, and not to specific countries, while the last line of Point 2.2.1 still appeared confusing. The Government member of Bolivia welcomed the new draft as allaying certain of his concerns regarding the promotional nature of the document. Specifically, on Point 1.2.1, he requested inclusion of the word "practice", recalling that the Government member of Mexico had stated that article 23 of the Constitution pointed out clearly that member States should provide copies to the most representative national employers' and workers' organizations; however, as currently drafted, it could refer to independent transmission, which he believed was not intended. He welcomed the exclusion of the term "established practice", since its meaning was unclear. Regarding Point 2.2.1, it was appropriate, in his view, to remove the phrase "in particular" because otherwise the phrase could be taken to refer to the availability of other documents -- which was not intended. Removing the other sentence was useful, in his opinion, because its scope was clearly defined in Point 2.2 which covered the reference to the Governing Body. He supported the earlier statement of the Government member of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, noting that Point 2.2.2 specified that reports must be sent to other member States, and earlier Governments' statements regarding technical assistance. He concluded by welcoming the information provided by the Legal Adviser, which he requested be placed in the report.

155. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, noted that the changes just announced by the secretariat addressed some of their concerns, and the group had three minor comments. First, in Point 0.2, he wished assurances that the procedure contemplated would be conducted on a non-complaints basis and would not be used to criticize any specific countries. Second, he requested clarification of the exact procedure to be used when the Office "compiled" the reports, taking into account the relationship between Points 1.2.2 and 1.2.3. Third, the meaning of "in particular" in Point 2.1.1 was unclear because it implied there were other sources to rely on; clarification was required before he could agree with it. A representative of the Secretary-General replied that, as to Point 0.2, the follow-up was a promotional and not a complaints-based procedure, that it was intended to help focus the Office's technical cooperation activities, and that there was no basis in the text or any discussions thus far for any other interpretation. The secretariat explained that the word "compiled" in Point 1.2.2 referred to the normal secretariat work conducted before the Governing Body and Conference sessions, which involved preparing for distribution and translating into the official languages the reports from member States. It was impossible to be precise about what would be involved in Point 1.2.3, as this would depend on the reports and information received. Furthermore, with respect to Point 2.2.1, the intent of the words "in particular" had been included to steer a middle course between having to list all possible sources and restricting the sources to such an extent that it would be impossible to obtain an overall picture of the situation. For example, were a State to submit an article 22 report to be examined by the Committee of Experts, and then legislation were subsequently adopted, the report would need to take that legislation into account in order to be complete. Moreover, the point would further encompass the use of information received under other constitutional procedures which were part of the regular work of examination by the supervisory bodies -- including the Governing Body and the Conference (articles 24, 26 and following, and 35).

156. The Government member of Pakistan noted that the revisions took care of some of the concerns mentioned earlier but, regarding Point 1.2.3, wondered whether the report would subsequently go back to the group of experts after it had been examined by the Office and the Governing Body. Regarding the global report, the points made by the secretariat reassured his delegation to a certain extent but he wondered whether Point 1.2.1, as redrafted, permitted anyone -- including NGOs, which were not recognized by the ILO under article 3 of the Constitution -- to provide information in addition to the recognized social partners, which he would not support; respecting Point 2.2.2, he expressed concern about the length of the sitting of the Conference devoted entirely to the report. He also maintained that even in its present form the global report would entail duplication and double scrutiny.

157. Replying to the specific issues raised by the Government member of Pakistan, the Legal Adviser provided the following explanations: concerning Point 1.2.3, he recalled that in its original form, it had contained the idea that the reports compiled by the Office should go to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations before being referred to the Governing Body or the Conference. The current text of the follow-up implied that the reports compiled by the Office would be communicated to a group of experts before the reports submitted by the States were sent to the Governing Body. This group would thus be entrusted with preparing the work of the Governing Body by proposing an introduction to the discussion (which, moreover, was already the case for the reports of the Committee on Freedom of Association). The responsibility of the introduction referred to under Point 1.2.3 would therefore lie with the group of experts. As regards Point 2.2.1, concerning the origin of information to be used to establish the global report, he confirmed categorically that information provided by NGOs could not be considered as official or as information gathered and assessed in accordance with the procedures referred to under Point 2.2.1. Finally, concerning Point 2.2.2, with regard to the length of the discussions devoted to the global report at the Conference, he noted it would be up to the Governing Body and the Conference to determine the length of this discussion; but it was highly unlikely that it could last for very long since the Conference would also have to examine the general part of the Director-General's Report, as well as the report of the Chairperson of the Governing Body.

158. The Government member of Japan, on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, recalled his request for assurance that the follow-up would not be used to criticize any specific country. The Worker members replied that while the goal of the global report was promotional, any meaningful discussion would have to include what was happening in various parts of the world with specific references, and that divergent views should be allowed. The Government member of Egypt noted that the recent revisions to the text of the follow-up responded to a number, but not all, of the concerns that had been raised; however, since it was evident that there had been an attempt to meet those concerns, he would not hold up consensus. However, on both the text and the follow-up, he wished to reserve comments for the end of the work of the Committee. The Government member of Ethiopia noted that the amendments read out by the secretariat were helpful and he accepted the text as revised; however, with regard to Point 1.1.1, he recalled the proposed change he had read out, noted that it had not been incorporated, and requested that the report of the Committee reflect his earlier proposed wording. The Government member of India supported the text as amended, noting that quite a few of his concerns had been taken into account in all three sections. In addition, he requested that the explanations provided by the secretariat on Points 1.2.2, 1.2.3 and 2.2.1 be included in an annex, to which the Chairperson noted that the explanations would be captured in the report of the Committee and be put on record. The Government member of Algeria stated that she had no difficulty in agreeing to the text discussed but wished to mention that, for the record, she would have preferred that the words "in particular" be deleted from Point 2.2.1.

159. The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran had listened carefully to the explanations given and wished to state his understanding on a number of issues. The global report was not intended to be country-specific but rather thematic. However, he recognized that: specific countries could be mentioned; the global report would not be of a supervisory nature; information other than that from governments could only be gathered from workers' and employers' organizations; and the group of experts or the Committee of Experts would ensure that this information and its sources were reliable and credible. In short, it was his delegation's understanding, from the nature and objectives spelled out in the follow-up, that the global report was not intended to be a parallel supervisory body, and not meant to criticize specific countries.

160. The Worker members felt the group of experts would assess the veracity of information. The Employer members pointed out that no provision had been made as yet for a group of experts. The Government member of Pakistan agreed that the follow-up, as it now stood, was acceptable. However, much would depend on the outcome of the final text of the Declaration, and any reservations on the Declaration would mean reservations on the follow-up. The Government member of Sweden pointed out that a number of governments had presented detailed amendments, which had not been looked into thoroughly, while other governments had refrained from making amendments, as requested by the Chair. Therefore, he felt that the discussion had been unbalanced.

161. The Chairperson concluded that the discussion of the follow-up had been completed and that agreement on the text, as amended, had been reached. He noted that comments on the full text of the Declaration and follow-up could, of course, be made at the end of the discussion.

III. Discussion of the draft Declaration

162. In initiating this part of the Committee's work, the Chairperson noted that the Committee was dealing with a Declaration which would express the fundamental principles and rights enshrined in the ILO Constitution and Declaration of Philadelphia. The point was not to rewrite the Constitution nor the Declaration of Philadelphia, but rather to adopt a promotional Declaration reaffirming these fundamental principles and rights.

Title

163. It was decided unanimously to address the question of the title only once the text had been adopted.

Point 1

Point 1.1

164. Since there was no amendment to Point 1.1 this was adopted without amendment.

165. Prior to considering amendments to the following points, there was a short discussion regarding the approach and sequence regarding amendments, following a point of order raised by the Government member of Egypt. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, felt that all amendments should be considered together, rather than the usual procedure of considering the most radical text, and dropping those which would no longer be discussed after the adoption of an amended text. Other members, including the Employer and Worker members, were of the opinion that the traditional procedure of moving from those amendments which had the most radical effect on the text to amendments of lesser impact was more logical and workable. The latter procedure was adopted, in conformity with the usual ILO practice.

Point 1.2

166. An amendment was submitted by the IMEC group to replace the text of Point 1.2 proposed in the report, by the following: "Whereas economic growth is essential but not sufficient to ensure equity and social progress, confirms the need for the ILO to promote strong social policies and democratic institutions." Introducing the amendment on behalf of the IMEC group, the Government member of Canada said it was intended to strengthen the point that economic growth was a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for social progress and that this was a more general way of making the point. This amendment was supported by the Worker and Employer members as well as by a number of governments. The Government member of the Democratic Republic of the Congo offered a subamendment to reintroduce from the Office text the need to address injustice and poverty, so that the subamended text would read as follows: "Whereas economic growth is essential but not sufficient to ensure equity, social progress and the eradication of poverty, confirms the need for the ILO to promote strong social policies, justice and democratic institutions." This was supported by the Employer members, the Worker members and the Government of Chile.

167. The Government member of Egypt, supported by a certain number of governments, felt that the reference to "strong democratic institutions" was beyond the ambit of the ILO's mandate. The Worker members recalled that one of the ILO's three main areas of action was the promotion of democracy and human rights, and said they understood that when the ILO Constitution referred to "member States", it included employers' and workers' organizations as well as governments. These, in their view, were democratic institutions. This view was supported by the Employer members, as well as some Government members, and was confirmed by the Legal Adviser. The Government member of Egypt suggested adding "social policies, justice and democratic practices in social institutions", in order to convey the scope of ILO action with regard to democratic institutions. The Government member of Sudan suggested adding a reference to employment promotion. After further discussion the Government member of Egypt, supported by the Government member of Pakistan, proposed adding "within its mandate" as an alternative to the earlier proposal. A number of members responded that this sort of language could be added after each point, which would be superfluous. As a further alternative, the Government member of Egypt suggested adding at the end of the paragraph the words "in labour matters". This proposal was opposed by the Employer members and the Worker members, and the Chairperson decided to freeze consideration temporarily on this point. After consideration of later points, the amendment, as subamended by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was adopted without the proposed additional language. Point 1.2 was adopted, as amended.

Point 1.3

168. The Committee considered Point 1.3, to which an amendment had been proposed by the IMEC group to delete the words "in particular employment, vocational training and working conditions". In introducing this amendment, the Government member of Canada, on behalf of the IMEC group, said it was not necessary to enumerate these areas of competence in the provision. The Employer members wished to hear the views of other members on this proposed amendment. In response the Government member of Pakistan said it was essential to have these areas mentioned since these were covered in the Constitution and needed to be reaffirmed, and because a number of developing countries had accepted to discuss the current draft Declaration on the understanding that it would be a corollary to the Copenhagen Social Summit, where the issue of employment had played a key role. A number of Government members from developing countries supported this view, arguing that these were key areas through which the ILO could promote social justice and the eradication of poverty. In view of this debate, the IMEC group withdrew the amendment.

169. The IMEC group had introduced another amendment to Point 1.3, namely to replace the words after "social development" by "economic and social policies are mutually reinforcing components in order to create broad-based sustainable development". This was supported by both the Worker and Employer members. The Committee adopted the amendment. The Government member of Guatemala proposed deleting "broad-based sustainable development" and inserting "sustainable human development", but withdrew the subamendment after discussion.

170. The Government members of Egypt and Jamaica had submitted an amendment to add after the words "in particular employment" the words "job creation", which they agreed to withdraw on the understanding that a broader point relating to job creation would receive support.

171. The Government members of Egypt and Jamaica submitted another amendment to introduce the words "economic and" before "social development". In introducing this amendment, the Government of Egypt said that they were concerned to ensure that the development process was a global one, which necessarily included the economic process, and that the economic and the social reinforce each other in a global strategy. A number of other Members were supportive of this argument, and this amendment was adopted.

172. The Government members of Egypt and Jamaica proposed a new sub-point under Point 1.3 to add:

In introducing this amendment, the Government of Egypt noted the particular relevance of these points and the fact that they would be major issues that would have to be dealt with in the years to come. The Employer members and Worker members were supportive of this amendment, noting, however, that the reference to "on the threshold of the new millennium" might date the Declaration; the Government member of Egypt agreed to this subamendment, which was incorporated. The Government of Canada, speaking on behalf of the IMEC group, suggested adding language emanating from the Copenhagen Social Summit regarding "persons with special social needs" in place of the reference to "hitherto socially underprivileged categories of workers". The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran proposed a further subamendment to read "workers with special needs". The Government member of Germany felt that the list of particular categories of workers could easily be expanded to include, e.g. the handicapped, youth, older workers and women. The Government member of Cameroon suggested adding the word "women" to "the unemployed and migrant workers", but did not maintain this proposal, in the light of further discussions. In a discussion of whether to specify certain groups of workers, some Government members agreed that if a list were to be created, it could not hope to be exhaustive. The Government member of the United States observed that achieving an acceptable categorization was necessarily problematic. The Government member of Egypt argued that the unemployed and migrants were very special categories whose needs had to be considered in job creation efforts. The Worker members proposed a subamendment, retaining the words "persons with special social needs" and adding "particularly" before "unemployed and migrant workers". The Employer members supported the subamendment, deeming it unnecessary to further categorize groups, noting that the unemployed and migrant workers clearly included women. After some debate this text, as subamended, was adopted.

Point 1.4

173. On Point 1.4, five amendments had been proposed. The Government member of Pakistan, for the sake of concentrating on strategic issues, withdrew his proposed amendment requesting deletion of the entire point. The Employer members proposed an amendment to replace the existing text with the following:

In introducing this amendment, the Employer members noted that they wished to clarify the relationship between social progress and economic growth, delete the language referring to "fundamental human rights at work" in view of lack of decision on the title, introduce a more general listing of the principles concerned, make a small adjustment to the reference to child labour by adding the word "effective" before "abolition", and link the amendment with the Spanish translation reflected in one of their later amendments to the Spanish text which sought to clarify that freedom of association applied to employers as well as to workers. The Worker members noted that the French text relating to "human rights" -- "droits de l'homme" -- was not gender-neutral, and that no reference had been made in Point 1.4 to collective bargaining. They introduced a subamendment, so that the proposed text would read as follows:

The Employer members agreed with this subamendment, provided that the word "human" was deleted, since there were human rights involved in the workplace that went beyond those involved in this context. The Worker members noted that, since consideration of the title had been left until the end of the document, they found it difficult to agree now to dropping the word "human" and the issue could be resolved once discussion of the title had taken place. The Chairperson suggested keeping the word "human" in quotation marks for the time being. The Government member of Poland stated his acceptance of the approach taken to the amendment, and the Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, suggested replacing the term "child labour" with " abolition of exploitative forms of child labour"; he sought consistency with proposed Points 3.1 and 3.4 and requested the Chairperson to defer the issue until those two points had been discussed. The Chairperson recalled that the phrase referred to by Japan was no longer in the text. The remaining proposed amendments to the point had been superseded and the text was adopted as amended, subject to the reservations concerning the word "human".

Point 1.5

174. With regard to Point 1.5, seven amendments had been proposed. The IMEC group proposed to amend the text to read:

The Worker members put forward several subamendments to the IMEC group's text to reflect their opposition to any form of protectionism, by adding "supervise" after the word "establish", and after the word "international" to replace "core" with "fundamental"; they also proposed an additional phrase at the end of the amendment: "and recognizing that no Member wishes to see those rights used as a pretext for the introduction of protectionist measures". The Government member of Canada, on behalf of the IMEC group, stated that the group's intention was to ensure that other organizations would not interfere with the mandate of labour standards exclusive to the ILO, and to ensure that the Declaration would strengthen supervision of the protection of workers' rights. The Employer members agreed to the insertion of "supervise", and the substitution of "fundamental" for "core". They proposed a further subamendment to the last part of the Workers' proposed subamendment: first, to replace the words "wishes to see those rights used" with the words "may use this Declaration"; second, referring to the additional aspect of proposed Point 6 as to comparative advantage, they proposed a further subamendment to add "that would call into question the comparative advantage of any country". They also referred to another amendment they had proposed to Point 6 that would add the idea that would exclude protectionist measures that would call into question the comparative advantage of other countries. They stated that the report of the Committee or the text of the Declaration could be used to make clear that the Declaration should not serve as a basis for adopting trade measures that would set aside obligations under other multilateral agreements. The Worker members accepted the Employer members' subamendment of their subamendment, although they were open to suggestions for improvement in the language "wishes to see those rights used" or "may use this Declaration". The Government member of Canada, speaking on behalf of the IMEC group, supported by the Worker members, requested time to reflect on the suggestions. The Government member of the United Kingdom proposed a further subamendment, which would add the following after the words "principles and values":

175. The Government member of Egypt noted that he had asked for the floor since this was an issue of special importance to the developing countries and only the representatives of industrial governments had spoken thus far. On a point of order, the Worker members objected to the suggestion that the Worker members' statement did not include the view of non-industrialized country delegates. In response, the Government member of Egypt clarified that he was speaking of Government members and, in his view, the Workers' group did not represent States or governments. Furthermore, he noted a confusion between Point 1.5, which would figure in the Preamble, and one of the operative points; he thought that the matter of distinguishing between the Preamble and the operative paragraphs should be discussed later. He was opposed to the amendment submitted by the IMEC group, noting that while it sought to clarify the original text, it needed to spell out that the ILO was the only international organization which could operate in the area of international labour standards. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, suggested a postponement of the discussion to allow further regional and interregional consultations. The Government member of Guatemala noted that the content of Point 6 was of fundamental importance to her Government and to other Latin American countries, and that certain concepts in the Workers' subamendment would change the place where the idea would be inserted in the Declaration, which would require further study. The Worker members stated that, upon examination, they found the text offered by the Government member of the United Kingdom acceptable in substitution of their own, and after consultation, the Employer and Worker members, together with the Government member of the United Kingdom, arrived at a proposed new text, which would be made available later that day. The Chairperson suggested reconsideration of the new text together with Point 6 and suspended temporarily consideration of the remaining amendments to Point 1.5.

Point 1.6

176. On Point 1.6, two amendments had been put forward. The Government member of Pakistan, for the sake of facilitating the proceedings, withdrew his amendment seeking to delete this point. The Government members of Mexico and Bolivia submitted an amendment to replace "the universal application of the rights which derive therefrom" by " their universal application", which the Government member of Mexico explained was intended to simplify the wording. The Worker members opposed the amendment, which they found confusing. The Employer members were likewise opposed, on the basis that it would undermine the central aspects of the Declaration's expression of the origin of the fundamental rights. The Government member of Brazil, recalling that in a proposed amendment to Point 1.5, the term "fundamental labour standards" had been used, suggested a subamendment to replace the last phrase with the "universal application of the rights which derive from its fundamental labour standards"; but he did not pursue this subamendment. The Employer members noted that the use of "fundamental labour standards" referred to the ILO's institutional mandate, and that Point 1.6 needed to refer to the essential basis of the Constitution and Declaration of Philadelphia as the source of these rights. The Chairperson noted again that resolution of the use of terms such as "principles, rights and values" in the context of the title might provide a basis for later agreement, and asked the Government member of Mexico whether consideration of the amendment could be suspended until the title was resolved. The Employer members objected because they did not view Point 1.6 as central to the issues involved in resolving the title. The Chairperson suggested that language such as "the fundamental principles and rights upon which the Organization is founded and to promote their universal application" might replace the existing text which began with the words "these principles and values". The Worker members and the Government of Mexico accepted the Chairperson's suggestion; the Employer members, while not objecting to the idea, preferred the original text since they viewed Point 1.6 as constituting a basis for the rest of the Declaration.

177. The Government member of India, agreeing in general with the suggestion of the Chairperson, wondered whether "principles and rights" could replace "principles and values", and noted that the existing textual reference seemed to be to rights deriving from the principles and values. He therefore requested clarification from the Legal Adviser. The Government member of the Democratic Republic of the Congo found no need to confuse rights and values, and that as a question of principle, it would be best not to defer the preambular points to be viewed after the title. The Government member of Botswana supported the original text of Point 1.6. In response to the question from the Government member of India, the Legal Adviser noted that Point 1.6 corresponded to the sequence of concepts put forth in the Declaration of Philadelphia, which in Part I stated that the Conference reaffirmed the fundamental principles upon which the Organization was based; in Part II, it noted the expression of certain principles; and in Part III, it stated that the Conference recognized the solemn obligation of the Organization to implement those principles, including that of helping member States to effectively recognize the right to bargain collectively. He remarked that this sequence -- that the Organization was based on certain principles and, as a consequence, was to promote a number of obligations and rights among member States --was reflected in the proposed Point 1.6. With regard to the current proposal, the Legal Adviser suggested the language "of the principles and rights embodied in the Constitution of the Organization and to promote their universal application". The Worker and Employer members accepted this suggested text. The Government member of Mexico expressed doubt as to the scope of the new language which spoke of all principles of the ILO, while in his view the Declaration was to refer only to four principles reflected in seven core Conventions. With the suggestion by the Legal Adviser that the language include the word "fundamental" before "principles and rights", the Government member of Mexico agreed, and the Chairperson announced the text for Point 1.6 adopted as amended.

Point 2

178. No amendments had been submitted concerning Point 2 as such.

Point 2.1

179. With respect to Point 2.1, three amendments had been submitted. The Government member of Bahrain withdrew the amendment which it had submitted to replace the words "towards attaining ... specific circumstances" by the following: "gradually, and according to their level of economic and social development, and in line with their specific circumstances, towards attaining the objectives of the Organization". An amendment submitted by the IMEC group was intended to delete the words "to the best of their resources and fully in line with their specific circumstances". The Government member of Canada, speaking on behalf of the IMEC group, stated that it was intended to ensure that fundamental rights were viewed as universal. The Employer members opposed the amendment, stating that they believed Point 2.1 focused on the Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia, not on the fundamental rights themselves as detailed under Point 3. The Worker members could accept the amendment but, from a broader perspective, would accept the existing language if it made it clearer that the current text was about the broader constitutional requirement of meeting ILO objectives. In response to a request by the Employer members, the Legal Adviser clarified that the text was intended to distinguish between: unqualified recognition of the values and principles in the Constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia; and the general principle within the Constitution that member States had undertaken to work towards achievement of the objectives in the Constitution. In his view, the last phrase ("to the best of their resources and fully in line with their specific circumstances") applied to the achievement of the objectives of the Organization and not to the first half of Point 2.1, and he suggested that the text could be clarified by inserting a comma after the word "Philadelphia" and deleting the comma in the existing text. On the basis of that evaluation, the Government member of Canada, representing the IMEC group, agreed to withdraw the amendment, subject to insertion of the word "overall" before the word "objectives". The Worker and Employer members accepted the insertion of the word "overall" in the text read by the Legal Adviser, and the text was adopted as amended.

180. The Chairperson observed that despite the fact that the original text, as amended, had been adopted for Point 2.1, a number of delegations believed it was still pertinent to discuss an amendment submitted by the Asia and Pacific group. This amendment sought to delete the word "fully" and to add, after "specific circumstances", the words "inter alia, in accordance with the stages of social and economic development reached by each country". The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of that group, said that the group wished clarification as to how the earlier text on Point 2.1, read out by the Legal Adviser, might be viewed as overtaking their proposed amendment. The Worker members stated they found the proposed amendment unconvincing. The Chairperson noted that, as clarified by the Legal Adviser earlier, it was the attainment of the objectives which was, in fact, variable according to circumstances, not the principles themselves, and that he believed that this understanding addressed the concern underlying the Asia and Pacific group's amendment. The Employer members noted that the existing text was sufficient, since its reference to "specific circumstances" necessarily encompassed social and economic circumstances, and the discussions which had taken place had made that clear. The Government member of Japan, on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, then accepted the text as read out by the Legal Adviser, while making a general request for more flexibility and transparency in discussing subsequent amendments which might be deemed affected by the adoption of a related amendment. Supplementing those remarks, the Government member of India requested a clarification from the Legal Adviser as to whether the IMEC group had formally withdrawn its amendment, and if so, whether that meant that the Asia and Pacific group's amendment could then be considered. The Legal Adviser replied that he understood that the IMEC group had withdrawn its proposed amendment; the subsequent amendment proposed by the Asia and Pacific group was indeed receivable and open for consideration. He understood however that the Chairperson had suggested that the substance of the amendment proposed by the Asia and Pacific group -- of which the receivability was not in question -- had been "absorbed" by the content of the initial text as read out by the Legal Adviser.

Point 2.2

181. With regard to Point 2.2, only one amendment had been submitted. The Government member of Pakistan withdrew the amendment, and the point was adopted without change.

Point 3

182. With reference to Point 3, six amendments had been submitted. Of the three which envisaged total replacement, the Chair proposed without dissent taking up the one proposed by the Employer members. The Employer members introduced this amendment, which replace the text with the following:

They felt that this stated, in a straightforward way, the duty arising from membership in the Organization vis-ŕ-vis policy objectives, and the scope thereof, as well as their view that the phrase "principles concerning fundamental rights" acknowledged that the rights were inherent, while the principles addressed the policy environment relating to the goals and objectives pertinent to those rights. The Worker members offered a subamendment seeking to simplify the Employers' text by replacing the proposed language after the word "to" with the following: "realize the principles and fundamental rights contained therein". In response, the Employer members requested the Legal Adviser to explain the difference, if any, in this context, between the phrase "principles concerning rights" and "principles and rights". The Legal Adviser noted that some ambiguity existed between "principles" and "fundamental rights" in the proposed paragraph, and contrasted their usage with the discussion thus far, which had addressed principles and fundamental rights in relation to the Constitution and Declaration of Philadelphia. Recalling his earlier mention in that regard of the difference between the English and French texts -- that the English text referred to the rights as "contained therein" and the French text referred to the rights which were the "object of" the Conventions -- the Legal Adviser stated that it would be up to the Committee to determine which meaning they wished to adopt. The Worker members stated their preference for the English version of the text, recalling that both principles and fundamental rights were contained within the ILO Conventions. The Employer members distinguished between "principles and fundamental rights" and "principles concerning fundamental rights"; in their view, the latter implied a more direct interconnection. In response, the Worker members noted that the phrase "principles and fundamental rights" was qualified by the words "contained therein, namely" and that adding the word "concerning" would detract from the premise that the rights derived from the fundamental Conventions. After consultations, the Employer members suggested the following compromise text:

The Worker members proposed that the words "the objectives of those Conventions" be replaced with "the subject of the Conventions" to reflect a more accurate English translation of the French version, to which the Employer members agreed. In response to a request by the Government member of Brazil to translate into French the proposed rewording of the end of the point, the Legal Adviser confirmed that the wording proposed read as presented in the existing French version of the text.

183. Opposing the Employers' amendment as subamended by the Workers, the Government member of India noted the importance of the phrase at issue to the nature and scope of the Declaration, which was not intended to impose legally binding obligations upon Members who wished to realize the objectives and purposes of the Organization. He further noted that one could not create from a legally non-binding document such as the Declaration a set of legally binding duties; in his view, the Employers' group's amendment as subamended by the Workers' group did not correct that problem. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, proposed a further subamendment which would read as follows:

explaining that the main purpose was to delete the phrase "even if ..." up to "question", to insert after "work" the words "in good faith and to the best of their abilities" and to replace "realization" with "promotion". On a point of order, the Worker members objected to the Asia and Pacific group subamendment as unacceptable because it sought to import, in the form of a subamendment, an entire amendment submitted by that group under the same point. The Chairperson stated his difficulty with accepting this as a subamendment to the amendment under consideration.

184. The Government member of Chile supported the amendment submitted by the Employer members as subamended, noting that the Declaration of Philadelphia recognized the principles as universal and fully applicable to all States, and recalled that the Preamble to the Constitution acknowledged that the improvement of working conditions assisted in alleviating the threat to universal and lasting peace. Opposing the amendment, the Government member of Australia noted that the amendments would fundamentally change the nature of the Declaration in that the discussion now focused on a direct linkage between the ILO Conventions and member States' obligations to respect the principles within the Conventions even though not ratified, to which his delegation could not agree. He noted further that the subamendment proposed by Japan, on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, would need to be addressed in order to reach agreement. The Government member of Guatemala considered it necessary to examine the other amendments presented under Point 3 to find the appropriate legal terms to reflect the goodwill of governments in promoting the principles of Conventions they had not ratified even though they had no legal obligation to implement them.

185. The Government member of Pakistan asked whether the lower priority given to the subamendment submitted by the Asia and Pacific group, which he deemed had been rejected, would in fact preclude any consideration of it. He asked also whether there was an opportunity to appeal the decisions respecting prioritization of amendments, and how an amendment given a lower priority could ever be considered. Excessive rigidity in applying rules of procedure could threaten consensus; other delegations took a similar view. He also said that no set rule of procedure had been followed in the consultations/discussions since the idea of a Declaration was first floated. Undue reliance now on rules of procedure for what was essentially a political exercise was not very desirable.

186. The Government member of Egypt stated that the amendment, as subamended, appeared in his view to be an attempt to bind States to Conventions they had not ratified, which had been rejected as a matter of principle. The Government member of Lebanon stated that, if the intention had been to adopt a set of binding principles, then the Declaration should have been converted to a Convention; the developing countries would not be in a position to delete words such as "in good faith" and "to the best of their abilities", and endorsed the text proposed by the Asia and Pacific group. The Government member of Cuba noted that the amendment would establish a dangerous precedent by attempting to introduce binding conventional obligations on non-ratifying States, and would only support the Declaration on the understanding that it would be aimed at promoting only the principles of Conventions. The Government member of Myanmar, associating himself with the Asia and Pacific group, was concerned at what he perceived to be a deviation from the law of treaties, and in particular the fundamental principle of pacta sunt servanda, and wished not to see a shift from the basic concerns and interests of all Members.

187. The Chairperson stressed that he had not followed any procedure during the meeting that was not transparent. Second, he explained that the Officers had done their best to evaluate and present amendments in a sequence which complied with ILO practice. Third, in opening the discussion on each point he had reminded the members of the Committee of the proposed order of consideration of amendments and he had heard to objections. Fourth, he had never attempted to foreclose any point that a delegate wished to make. Finally, he had not yet ruled anything out of order. It was difficult to accept a text, as subamended, which reproduced the complete text from another proposed amendment not yet before the Committee, but all members were entitled to move a subamendment to introduce any dimension they considered important.

188. A number of Government members expressed concern over what they considered the binding nature of the amendment proposed by the Employers. The Government member of China, expressing support for the amendment proposed by the Asia and Pacific group, said the amendment proposed by the Employers changed the nature of the Declaration which would be a non-binding document, and that the words "have a duty" were quite inappropriate. The Government member of Sudan questioned the promotional nature of the Declaration, if it included language that might be considered of a binding nature. The Government member of the Republic of Korea felt that the Employers' amendment might change the nature of the Declaration, and he wondered whether the Committee might not examine the subamendment put forward by the Asia and Pacific group. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of his Government, expressed concern over the implications of the Employers' amendment, as subamended by the Workers; in international law, instruments are only binding on States that have ratified them.

189. Some Government members sought areas of compromise. The Government member of Finland suggested that, as "duty" might be interpreted as a legal duty, the word be changed to "obligation". The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic felt that the amendment proposed by the Asia and Pacific group was in keeping with the Constitution, and encouraged the Committee to find a compromise between these two amendments. The Government member of Ethiopia, in supporting the amendment put forward by the Asia and Pacific group, said that he accepted the word "promotion" together with the word "realization" already in the text.

190. The Government member of Canada, speaking on behalf of the IMEC group, felt that there was an ambiguity in the text of the Employers' amendment as to whether the principles relate to those in the Conventions in question or to the Constitution, and moved a subamendment which would make the text read as follows:

191. Some Government members preferred to return to aspects of the original text. The Government member of the Democratic Republic of the Congo preferred the original text of Point 3, in particular with the notions of "values", "good faith" and "to the best of their abilities". This provision should apply to countries not having ratified the Conventions in question; indeed, if all countries had ratified them, this Declaration would have no raison d'ętre. He proposed an amendment to the original text to replace "duty" by "obligation", and to add "promotional" before "realization". The Government member of New Zealand felt that the amendments of the Employer members, as subamended by the Workers, was stressing the point of "duty" even more than the original text, and preferred to revert to the original text, with new amendments to that text slightly amended.

192. Responding to the long debate, the Employer members regretted that their amendment seemed to have been misunderstood. They thought that they had made their basic position clear from the start: first, the Declaration was not binding, although member States did have certain obligations by virtue of membership; second, it was only meant to encompass basic principles on fundamental rights and member States were not expected to give account of details of Conventions they had not ratified. They referred to article 19(5)(c) and (e) of the Constitution, which stressed that if a Convention were not ratified "no further obligation shall rest upon the Member except that it shall report to the Director-General of the International Labour Office ...", and stated that there was no "disguised ratification aspect" to this amendment. In this connection, the Government member of Germany referred to paragraph 54(b) of the Programme of Action adopted by the Social Summit in Copenhagen. Reference had been made to countries that were not parties to Conventions; he could not understand how a mere reference to Conventions could mean that non-ratifying countries and ratifying countries would be required to meet the same obligations. He felt that the suggestion of the Government member of Finland, as amended by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as well as the proposal of Canada, speaking on behalf of the IMEC group, were helpful means of reaching compromises.

193. The Worker members regretted that fears from various quarters had not been allayed, and stressed that the Declaration would not impose any legal obligations in and of itself. They feared that there were some governments that did not want to admit to any moral obligation, let alone legal obligation, and did not want to commit themselves to anything. They agreed with the Government member of Germany that the Social Summit in Copenhagen had paved the way for the present text, and called for greater sincerity from governments.

194. The Chairperson recalled that an amendment had been proposed by the Employer members and subamended by various speakers. The subamendment submitted by the Government member of Japan, reflected the content of the amendment submitted on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group -- although this was a separate amendment. He wondered what action the Committee was prepared to take in the first instance with respect to the original amendment submitted by the Employers, with subamendments from the floor.

195. Following intensive consultations among the members, the Chairperson stated that a new text had emerged as a basis for discussion, and read it out:

196. The Worker members proposed a subamendment which sought to replace the word "commitment" with "obligation" and the phrase "to promote and realize in good faith, in accordance with the Constitution" with "to respect and realize in good faith". The Worker members further expressed concern about what they considered the position of certain governments to include fewer rather than more moral obligations in the Declaration, and urged those governments in favour of the draft Declaration to express their views. The Employer members accepted the Chairperson's text and agreed to the Workers' subamendment and noted, in particular, that the reference to being in accordance with the Constitution was superfluous. They also expressed concern at the earlier lack of participation of a large majority of the Committee, namely those governments in favour of the text under consideration.

197. Recalling the statement of the President of Venezuela to the current session of the International Labour Conference likening the proposed Declaration to a third beacon to enlighten our work into the next century, the Government member of Chile supported the Chairperson's proposed text and declared his unreserved support for the Declaration and follow-up. The Government member of Finland supported the text and appealed to all Government members to support it, even as subamended by the Worker members and in particular to replace the word "commitment" by "obligation". The Government member of Hungary supported the subamendment by the Worker members, and believed that the adoption of the Declaration was an obligation proceeding from the Copenhagen Social Summit which would be particularly meaningful in the context of globalization. The Government member of Norway supported the Worker members' subamendment and reiterated his support for the earlier text proposed by the Employer members, as subamended by the Worker members. The Worker member of France (Mr. Blondel) explained that the Worker members had not submitted many amendments in order to be effective, and pointed to a contradiction in the position taken by certain governments which had ratified the core Conventions yet could not support the proposed wording. The Government member of Canada, speaking on behalf of the IMEC group, reiterated the statements already made on the point by individual IMEC group supporting the Chairperson's reformulation and the Workers' subamendment. The Government member of Germany supported the Chairperson's text and the Workers' subamendment, reminding the Committee that, in the original text, "duty" had been the term used and the term "obligation", proposed by the Worker members, was a less strong but appropriate term. He further recalled that the Workers' substitution of "promote" by "respect" correlated with paragraph 54(b) of the Programme of Action adopted by the Copenhagen Social Summit, which used the word "respect" for all States, whether or not they had ratified Conventions. Finally, he believed that deletion of the phrase "in accordance with the Constitution" was useful to avoid repeating the reference in Point 2.1. The Government member of Lebanon believed that the words "taking into account" -- which she recalled was what the Copenhagen Programme of Action required of non-ratifying States -- should replace the word "realize" and that the proposed deletion of the words "to the best of their abilities" from Point 3 was of concern to certain countries. The Government member of Sweden expressed support for the Chairperson's proposal and supported the Worker members' subamendment as a clear improvement. The Government member of Canada supported the Chairperson's text, accepted the subamendment offered by the Worker members, and appealed to the Committee to agree to it and move on. The Government member of France expressed support for the proposed text and the Worker members' subamendment, and requested that the Chairperson halt the discussion on the point.

198. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, appreciated and supported the compromise proposed by the Chairperson, but could not accept the subamendment proposed by the Worker members. The Government member of India supported the text proposed by the Chairperson and believed that it commanded consensus among the Government members.

199. After a period of consultation, the Chairperson proposed a new consensus text for Point 3, which read:

The Worker members supported the revised text, as did the Employer members, who viewed it as no different in spirit and intent than the language they had proposed in their original subamendment. The Government member of Guatemala indicated that it was unacceptable for other Members to say that some countries took contradictory positions for the simple reason that they could not accept the proposed text under Point 3. She stressed that, in her view, the problem of accepting the proposed text was not one of a lack of goodwill or commitment on the part of governments to promote the principles underlying fundamental labour rights; rather the problem was that some countries were insisting on using language that did not reflect the legal realities of the situation under review. She noted that, although it appeared to her delegation that the proposed text did not contain the appropriate language, she would not oppose the text if there was consensus, taking into account the explanation of the Legal Adviser. The Government member of Lebanon asked whether any legal distinction existed between "commitment" and "obligation". The Government member of Mexico noted distinctions between the text read in English and in Spanish, since in Spanish "aplicar" appeared to be different from the English version, which referred to "realize" and not "apply". He further objected to the meaning of the term "obligation," which in his view implied an obligation to comply with the provisions contained in non-ratified Conventions. The Chairperson agreed to find the appropriate Spanish language phrasing, and stated that there was no obligation on any State as a result of the text under discussion to implement or abide by Conventions which they had not ratified.

200. The Government member of Egypt did not believe that the Committee had reached a consensus on the wording. The Government member of Namibia, speaking as coordinator of the African group, stated that his group had refrained from submitting many amendments but had doubts about the two terms "commitment" and "obligation". They felt that the text should be promotional and regretted that "to promote" had been deleted.

201. The Chairperson felt that the Constitution provided every degree of protection against "obligations" in the Declaration being considered as legal obligations. It was for this reason that the Worker members had accepted that the words "in accordance with the Constitution" be reinserted in Point 3 of the text proposed that morning. He felt that all points of view had been taken into account in the discussion. The Worker members stated that they would not object to adding the term "to promote" to the text, if this would be helpful to the African group. The text was thus further amended to add "to promote" after "to respect".

202. The Government member of Cuba continued to be uneasy about the term "obligation" as she felt this implied that States would be obliged to apply the principles in the fundamental Conventions. She considered that the Declaration should be promotional and should not create obligations which had not been accepted through ratification of the Conventions concerned. She considered that there was no consensus on this paragraph. The Chairperson asked the Legal Adviser to make a statement on the distinction between "obligation" and "commitment". The Legal Adviser explained that the terms represented two ways of seeing the same thing: namely, the content of the contract between member States and the Organization. When countries became Members of the Organization, they made certain "commitments" under the Constitution towards the Organization. "Obligations" represented what the Organization could expect of States under the Constitution once they became Members.

203. The Government member of Mexico said he continued to have reservations about the Spanish version of the text, and that there was no consensus on the text. The Government member of Venezuela, while reaffirming his country's belief in the Declaration, felt that the Organization needed a promotional Declaration adopted by consensus; he could have accepted "commitment" as it was qualified by the words "in good faith"; however, he felt that "obligation" had a legal connotation.

204. The Worker members, while agreeing that the Spanish version might have to be adjusted, asked that a vote be taken. The Employer members stated that there was an overwhelming consensus for the text, but that consensus did not imply that every person in the room had to agree. The Chairperson reiterated that it was his understanding that there was a consensus on the new text and he maintained that position. The Government member of Mexico did not agree with the way in which this decision was taken. Point 3 was adopted as amended.

Point 3.1

205. On Point 3.1, two amendments had been proposed. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, submitted an amendment to delete the term "the effective recognition of" so that Point 3.1 would read as follows: "freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining". The group felt that "effective recognition" was ambiguous.

206. The Worker members opposed this amendment, as they felt that freedom of association was meaningless without the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining. The Employer members were opposed to the amendment for different reasons. Points 3.1 to 3.4 were restrained by the introduction clause; the deletion of the word "effective" would have no impact. In a spirit of compromise, the Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, withdrew the amendment.

207. The Employer members introduced their amendment to the Spanish version to replace "libertad sindical" by "libertad de asociación". They felt that "libertad sindical", which was used as the translation of "freedom of association", did not cover both employers and workers. The Employer member of Uruguay (Mr. Varela) referred to the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) which in its Spanish version refers to "libertad sindical", and which thus did not reflect the full scope of the English term "freedom of association". In the Declaration of Philadelphia, Part I(b), the Spanish version refers to "libertad de expresión y de asociación", a much better translation. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 20) refers to "libertad de reunión y de asociación" and article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights refers to "derecho de asociación".

208. The Worker members asked whether it was possible to change the accepted ILO language now.

209. The representative of the Secretary-General pointed out that this was a problematic issue. Article 41 of the original ILO Constitution referred to the "right of association for workers and employers". In Convention No. 87, the term "libertad sindical" had been used in Spanish -- and thereafter it had become more or less "house" language. He noted, however, that the Declaration of Philadelphia referred to "libertad de expresión y asociación". In 1970, there had been a Conference discussion on trade union rights as a result of a resolution that had been submitted and, at the time, the Employers' group had accepted that "libertad sindical" covered both employers and workers.

210. The Government members of Mexico, Chile and Guatemala agreed with the proposed amendment, as "libertad sindical" was only one aspect of industrial relations -- in the case of Guatemala, the Labour Code referred to "sindicatos de empleadores" but no employers' association corresponding to this term had ever been established. The Government members of Argentina and Panama supported the Employers' amendment. The Government member of Honduras stated that his country's legislation was based on ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, and that if the term "libertad sindical" was eliminated from the Declaration social peace in his country would be threatened. The Honduran Constitution provided that employers and workers have the right to establish unions ("sindicatos"). The Government member of Brazil said that Point 3 of the Declaration did not refer strictly to Conventions but to principles contained in the Conventions, and perhaps the Committee could accept a looser version of the Spanish in this context. The Government member of Côte d'Ivoire pointed out that the French expression was "liberté d'association".

211. The Worker members questioned the message which would be sent by the Declaration if a new wording were adopted at this point, as the Declaration would refer to fundamental rights in Conventions. The Worker member of Chile (Ms. Rozas) explained that in her country "libertad de asociación" did not necessarily imply "libertad sindical". Perhaps the problem could be solved by using both expressions.

212. The Government members of Chile, Venezuela and the Dominican Republic also suggested using both expressions: "libertad sindical y de asociación". The Government member of the Dominican Republic felt that "freedom of association" encompassed the right to create organizations but did not include the right to collective bargaining.

213. It was agreed to establish a tripartite Spanish-language working group to look into this problem and make a recommendation. Subject to the decision on this matter, Point 3.1 was adopted.

Point 3.2

214. On Point 3.2, one amendment was proposed. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, submitted his group's amendment to delete "all forms of" in Point 3.2 of the Declaration. He explained that in many countries, for example, prison labour and military service were legal forms of compulsory labour.

215. The Worker members opposed this amendment because this would weaken the message of the Declaration. The Employer members, for different reasons, also opposed the amendment. They felt the scope of the principle was spelled out in the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29).

216. The Government member of Namibia, speaking on behalf of the African Government group, supported the amendment because he had serious problems with "all forms" of forced labour as some constitutions allowed certain forms of compulsory labour. The Government member of Australia agreed with the amendment because there were some forms of prison labour which were currently the subject of discussion under the relevant Conventions.

217. The Government member of the United States opposed the amendment, as did the Government members of Chile, Sweden, France and Brazil, because the Declaration referred to adherence to principles and values and not to specific Conventions. The Government members of Guatemala and Argentina preferred the original wording of the text of the Declaration.

218. The Employer members stated that Article 2(2)(a) and (c) of Convention No. 29 dealt with the two concerns of the Asia and Pacific group; by excluding from the scope of the Convention, work of a purely military nature under laws requiring compulsory military service, and compulsory work as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. The issue at stake was the principles contained in the ILO Constitution.

219. The Government member of Germany asked for a legal clarification, as to whether "all forms" of labour went beyond Convention No. 29, or whether it would be interpreted as including provisions in that Convention. The Legal Adviser stated that it was necessary to make a distinction between principles and the application of principles as developed in the relevant Convention. Although the Declaration did not make the provisions of the Convention applicable, it was perfectly legitimate, in determining what was understood by "forced labour in all its forms", to refer to the definition of the Convention which did in fact exclude some situations -- including those previously referred to in the discussion.

220. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, accepted the secretariat's clarification that the text did not go beyond Convention No. 29 and withdrew the amendment. Point 3.2 was adopted.

Point 3.3

221. One amendment had been proposed on Point 3.3. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, introduced an amendment to delete the word "effective" and insert "exploitative forms of" before "child labour". He strongly supported the principle of the abolition of child labour but pointed out that some national legislation allowed certain forms of child work, for example, newspaper delivery. This kind of beneficial child labour should instead be encouraged.

222. The Worker members opposed the amendment. The Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), contained detailed provisions on child labour, and most probably the new Convention currently being examined in another Committee of the Conference would also do so.

223. The Employer members felt that "effective" did not mean that all forms of child labour would have to be abolished. He reiterated that this draft Declaration was dealing with the principle rather than any detailed definition of child labour.

224. The Government member of New Zealand supported the amendment. Although he strongly supported the elimination of extreme forms of child labour, he did not believe that all forms of child labour had adverse effects. He was puzzled by the Employers' explanation that the words "the effective abolition of child labour" did not mean exactly that. He found the language in the introduction which referred to the principles as covering the fundamental rights which were the objects of the Conventions, involved a degree of circularity that was unhelpful. The Government member of Australia stated that, while his Government strongly supported the abolition of unacceptable forms of child labour, and supported the amendment, he felt that there was a basic difference between the discussion on Point 3.2 and Point 3.3. An attempt was being made to seek a qualitative term. He supported the amendment because he felt that some forms of child labour could be beneficial, particularly in terms of instilling work values. The Government member of Lebanon questioned whether the effective abolition of child labour could take place immediately. She pointed out that there were different minimum age levels for employment in various countries -- as indeed was accepted under Convention No. 138. The Government member of Bolivia supported the amendment because, unfortunately, child labour was unavoidable in some social and economic situations.

225. The Government member of the Netherlands felt that "effective" must be retained. While agreeing that not all forms of child labour were necessarily bad, he felt that the concept of "exploitative" overlapped with the work that was going on in the Committee on Child Labour. The Government member of Germany felt that the issue involved in this discussion was very close to that discussed with respect to Point 3.2. The Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138) provided for activities in which children could work. The Declaration did not cover these activities, but also it could not be restricted to "exploitative" child labour. The Government member of Canada asked for a legal opinion. The Legal Adviser pointed out that the Declaration was referring to a general principle. Convention No. 138 was concerned with establishing rules relating to minimum age for work. The fact that the draft Declaration used the word "effective" did not mean that it would exclude all forms of child labour when the Convention itself made it clear in Article 6 and others that some forms of child work were not incompatible with this objective, nor did it imply an immediate application of this principle.

226. The Government member of Canada, given this explanation, could accept the original text if it was meant to address work which was harmful to children. The Government member of the United States was satisfied with the explanation given by the Legal Adviser. The text did not imply that children should never do any form of work, and therefore he opposed the amendment. The Government members of Chile, Panama, Portugal and Guatemala could not support the amendment. The Government member of Guatemala explained that, in her own country, certain forms of child labour were practised, as for instance the custom among the indigenous peoples to involve children in agricultural work of sowing and harvesting. Nevertheless, she supported maintaining the original text which referred to the effective abolition of child labour in order to refer to a general principle. The Government member of Ireland felt it would give the wrong message to qualify child labour, and was therefore opposed to the amendment.

227. The Government member of the United Kingdom stressed that the long-term aim should be to eliminate all forms of child labour. She accepted the Legal Adviser's explanation that the text of the Declaration would not exclude all forms of child labour, and therefore opposed the amendment.

228. The Government member of Namibia, speaking on behalf of the African group, appealed for consistency. On the one hand, the discussion seemed to be dealing with provisions in Conventions and on the other, with principles. He proposed referring to "progressive elimination of child labour". The Government member of Egypt felt that if the Committee agreed upon the meaning, then it should be able to agree upon the actual wording.

229. The Government member of Denmark understood that the discussion was about principles and felt that the term "exploitative" was too close to the work of another Committee of the Conference which was discussing child labour. The Government member of Argentina stated that he preferred the original text, though he understood those who argued that some forms of child labour could be beneficial. These situations were not covered, as the Legal Adviser had explained.

230. The Legal Adviser stated again that the expression "effective abolition of child labour" could and must be understood in a promotional and progressive sense -- which was indeed also reflected in the definition of Article 1 of Convention No. 138. To the extent that the Convention itself recognized that certain forms of child labour did not fall within its scope, or might be excluded in certain circumstances, it was clear a fortiori that the Declaration did not require Members to eliminate such forms of child labour or similar forms.

231. After a brief period of consultation on the amendment to Point 3.3 submitted by the Asia and Pacific group, the Government member of Japan withdrew the amendment on the condition that they receive assurance that the report would make clear that the meaning of the sentence excluded beneficial forms of child labour. The Worker members stated assent to the meaning proposed by the Government member of Japan. The Government member of Australia noted that the withdrawal represented a significant concession of the Asia and Pacific group which should be noted in future discussions. The Government member of Guatemala noted that the principles of non-discrimination, freedom of association and collective bargaining, and the elimination of all forms of forced labour were stated in general terms, and as in the case of child labour, not all forms of discrimination were prohibited, as there were means of positive discrimination excluded from the definition of discrimination in Convention No. 111. This reinforced the point of view of those who felt that the principle of the effective abolition of child labour was well drafted in the original Office text, as that did not refer to "all forms of" child labour. Point 3.3 was adopted without amendment.

Point 3.4

232. On Point 3.4, two amendments had been proposed. On the amendment submitted by the Asia and Pacific group to replace the text by "the principle of non-discrimination", the Government member of Japan, speaking on the group's behalf, explained that the elimination of all forms of discrimination was beyond the scope of the Conventions and preferred the Copenhagen wording. The Worker members opposed the amendment as the original text was preferable, while the Employer members understood that the discrimination referred to was limited to the scope of the categories enumerated in Article 1(1)(a) of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) but did not extend to the possibilities the Convention allowed of adding further prohibited grounds in the national context. The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran noted that "in all its forms" and "in respect of" would include discrimination on the ground of age and nationality, and that neither the exceptions noted in Convention No. 111 nor the concept of affirmative action were included, so that his delegation also preferred the Copenhagen formulation referring to the principle of non-discrimination. The Government members of Namibia and the United States opposed the amendment. The Government member of Germany recalled that the Committee had agreed to an introduction for Point 3, which referred to the obligation arising from membership in the Organization as one involving principles. It would then be redundant to adopt the word "principle" again at the start of the sub-point. He proposed a subamendment to delete the words "in all its forms", which the Worker and Employer members and the Government members of the Netherlands and Brazil supported. The Government member of Finland supported the original text since a principle was involved, but stated that he could also support the Worker members. The Government member of France failed to see a meaningful distinction between the forms of the clause with and without the words in question. The Government member of Japan, on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, withdrew its amendment.

233. The Government member of Botswana requested to know the conceptual distinction between the pertinence of retaining or removing the words "all forms of" in Point 3.2 and Point 3.4, to which the Legal Adviser responded that the meaning of "all forms of forced or compulsory labour" in Point 3.2 was easily identifiable, while in the context of discrimination, Convention No. 111 allowed for voluntary policies and goals to relate to grounds of discrimination not enumerated in the Convention itself and thus the meaning of "in all its forms" would remain undetermined. Point 3.4 was adopted as amended, to read "the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupations".

234. The Government member of Namibia, seconded by the Government member of Botswana, suggested that the amendment he had submitted to add a new sub-point after Point 3.4 be considered at a later stage (perhaps together with the amendment submitted by Pakistan as a new sub-point after Point 4.3).

Point 5

235. On Point 5, nine amendments had been proposed. In view of the agreement already reached on the text of the follow-up, the Chairperson wished to propose a simplification to the original text of Point 5, to delete the word "mechanism" and the phrase "containing a review of annual reports under article 19(5)(e) of the Constitution and a global report". The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, requested clarification as to whether the amendment it had submitted proposing a new sub-point before Point 5 would be considered at some later point, and the Chairperson confirmed this. The Government member of Egypt, recalling that his Government had submitted an amendment under Point 5, accepted the Chairperson's formulation, on the condition that the concerns expressed in his Government's amendment, which he believed were acceptable to various delegations, were included in the Committee's report. His amendment had proposed to add, after the words "promotional follow-up", the words "non-punitive and non-complaints-based". In response to the Chairperson's proposed formulation, the Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, requested the addition of the words "non-legally binding" before the word "Declaration" but did not pursue the matter on the condition that general assurances would be made on that point. The Chairperson noted that modalities for supplying those assurances were under discussion with the Legal Adviser. The Government member of the Democratic Republic of the Congo requested a clarification on whether the words "shall be" should be replaced with the present tense, which the Chairperson thought would not be necessary. The Chairperson then announced that the language proposed by him on Point 5 was agreed, thus superseding the amendments submitted on that point.

Point 6 (and Point 1.5 (cont.))

236. Turning to Point 6, it was decided to consider this point together with Point 1.5, since they were related. The Worker members believed that debate on that point might illuminate the issues that were perhaps the most controversial under consideration. The Employer members proposed that Point 6 should be handled within the Preamble itself, given that the ILO had no trade competence, and the most that the Committee could do would be to reflect in some way the language adopted in Singapore. In response, the Worker members recalled their amendment to delete Point 6 from the Declaration. Indeed, many in the ILO believed there was no link between trade and labour, and that the Point addressed the activities of other organizations. In order to respond to those who believed it necessary to address those issues, the Worker members recalled their amendment submitted under Point 1.5 as subamended by the Government member of the United Kingdom, which they considered a substitute for Point 6. This would replace the text of Point 1.5 by:

The Worker members then proposed to look at Point 1.5 in two parts, first a variation on the original and second, a separate text which would clearly say that nothing in the Declaration and its follow-up would authorize or require the use of labour standards for protectionist purposes.

237. The Employer members proposed that the discussion first deal with placement (i.e. whether this language would go into the Preamble or the operative part) and then language, to which the Worker members agreed, as did the Government member of the United States. The Government member of Mexico expressed his difficulty in deciding the placement of the text before knowing its content, and proposed that agreement on the text be reached first. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, agreed with this approach as did the Government member of Egypt. The Government member of Hungary supported the deletion of Point 6 and, if not accepted, would support the Employer members' proposal that it was within the competence of other multilateral organizations to judge whether measures were protectionist or not. The Government member of the United States recalled his proposed amendment to delete Point 6, and stated that he found it remarkable that some of those most intent on denying the relationship between the two subjects of trade and labour were some of those most intent on drawing the relationship in this document.

238. The Worker members noted that the Singapore ministerial language had not included the views of workers and employers but only governments, and said that since the proposal reflecting that wording was based on a decision already made, it would be logical to place it in the Preamble. If the Declaration referred to the obligations of governments in other fora, that in itself would impose an obligation which the Declaration should not do. They referred to the amendment submitted by the Employer members to replace Point 6 by:

and said that, if debated, it could be subamended by adding at the beginning: "Recognizing the relationship between trade and labour standards".

239. In response, the Government member of India noted that the entire text of the Declaration was both a reaffirmation of existing obligations vis-ŕ-vis the Organization, and a strengthening of commitments regarding fundamental human rights. Since the ILO was mandated to promote labour standards in their own right without relying on any other organization, he saw no point in the additional wording suggested by the Worker members. Associating himself with the remarks of Egypt, Mexico, and the Asia and Pacific group on Point 6, he favoured discussion on the text before debate on its placement, given that, in his view, the texts of Point 1.5 and Point 6 were in some ways linked. To move forward, he suggested discussing separately the two aspects of the "United Kingdom language"; first, the role of the ILO and second, the use or misuse of the Declaration. He noted that labour standards were developmental benchmarks essential to the promotion of social justice and equity around the globe, and opposed the adoption of language from the WTO meeting rather than language appropriate to the ILO. The Government member of Sudan noted that the countries of the Third World believed there should be no link between trade and labour standards, wished to have labour standards discussed only in the ILO and nowhere else; in his view, it was this that had prompted many countries to agree to have a Declaration. Supporting the placement of the issue in the operative part of the Declaration, he believed that a solution should be balanced and called for flexibility to be shown by other countries in the same way the developing countries had been flexible on earlier points. The Government member of Namibia, speaking on behalf of the African Governments' group, agreed with the Government member of Sudan and insisted that Point 6 be in the operative part. The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran recalled the importance of this issue for the Committee, and its origins in the "Uruguay Round" trade negotiations at Marrakesh and in other fora, and indicated that advocates of trade conditionality might try to use the Declaration and its follow-up as an excuse. He supported having the text mention not only protectionism but also trade measures, and believed the Singapore language was not sufficient.

240. A number of Government members sought to assist the Chairperson in reaching consensus on how to sequence the discussion on Points 1.5 and 6. Associating himself with India and the Islamic Republic of Iran in calling for language not based on the Singapore Declaration, the Government member of Pakistan stated that his delegation had agreed to a follow-up on which it still had serious reservations, but was getting nothing in return on Points 1.5 and 6, which were for developing countries. The Government member of Egypt stated that Point 6 would not represent new obligations but rather a commitment to refrain from abusing or misusing the Declaration. In short, he viewed the point as a "safeguard" clause which was necessary for consensus, and such clauses were usually put at the very end of documents. The Government member of Venezuela noted that the placement of Point 6, which presented a fundamental question linked with Point 1.5, would depend on how the content was framed. In his view, the document would form part of the principles of the Organization and, although it was not legally binding, it would have a legal meaning and could contribute to the evolution of international law, and particularly international labour standards. The Government member of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of the ASEAN countries, found the concept of excluding resort to trade measures essential to the Declaration. The Government member of Belgium supported inclusion in the Preamble a language indicating that the Declaration could only be used for the purpose for which it was devised. This would confirm the mission of the ILO and the immutable nature of its principles and values. He believed that embarking on the more detailed points as to labour standards and trade would be futile.

241. Having listened to the opening remarks, the Chairperson felt many Committee members wished to focus first on the language of the issue rather than its placement in the text. It would be necessary to try and find language which would address: (a) the competency of the ILO; and (b) the issue of trade measures of a protectionist nature. He also observed that there was a strong undercurrent in the room that the Declaration of Singapore was important defining language. He felt that the first two lines of the subamendment to Point 1.5 submitted by the United Kingdom dealt with the "competency" concept. The text was as follows: Whereas the ILO has a constitutional mandate to establish, supervise and promote its fundamental standards and the corresponding fundamental rights as the expression of its constitutional principles.

242. The Worker members suggested accepting this subamendment as it was.

243. The Government member of India felt that this phrase did not reflect the ILO's "exclusive mandate", and made no reference to the fact that the ILO was the competent body to deal with fundamental rights. This language restricted the ILO to fundamental labour standards and corresponding fundamental rights, and thereby would limit considerably the ILO's mandate.

244. The Government member of Japan, representing the Asia and Pacific group, felt that there were two problems with this text. First, it did not make it clear that the ILO had the exclusive mandate in the area of international labour standards. Second, stating that the ILO had a mandate to "supervise and promote" labour standards would dilute the ILO's mandate, which was broader. He proposed a subamendment:

The Worker members could accept this amendment, provided that the text were to read as follows:

In response to a query by the Government member of Japan, the Worker members replied that "international organization" should be deleted because it was necessary to make it clear that the ILO's exclusive mandate was to establish and supervise labour standards, but it was not the only organization which could promote these standards.

245. The Government member of Namibia stated that the text did not clarify which rights the ILO was competent to promote. The Government member of Mexico could have accepted the amendments submitted by the Asia and Pacific group; it was important to emphasize the exclusive mandate of the ILO. The Government member of India agreed with Mexico that the ILO was the constitutionally mandated organization to establish labour standards and he wondered why the Workers wanted to dilute the ILO's mandate in this way. He queried which other organizations were competent in the area of labour standards. The Government member of Guatemala proposed using the wording suggested by Mexico.

246. The Worker members reiterated that the ILO was mandated to establish, supervise and promote standards but was not the only organization which could promote them. They referred to the European Union, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the United Nations itself as other organizations that had both adopted and promoted labour standards or standards with a labour dimension. He felt that the ILO could turn to other bodies to help it promote labour standards.

247. The Government member of India felt the European Union represented only its Member States and could not purport to speak universally on behalf of the international community. Furthermore, the Asia and Pacific group had conceded that the term "supervise" be included in the text. The Government member of Venezuela agreed with Mexico and India; the only way to strengthen the ILO was to stress its exclusive mandate. The Government member of Algeria agreed with Mexico and India that the ILO was the only body with a universal vocation to deal with labour standards, and raised doubts about how regional bodies, for instance, could promote universal rights. The Government member of Japan noted that the Workers accepted the ILO as being the sole body mandated to deal with labour standards; the only problem was the notion of "promoting" standards. The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic agreed with the position of the Asia and Pacific group that the ILO was the only organization, by virtue of its constitutional mandate, to deal with labour standards, and this had been recognized at Singapore and Copenhagen. The Government member of Pakistan agreed that other organizations might be involved in the area of labour standards but that this was not the main thrust of the Constitution.

248. The Government member of the United Kingdom wondered what was meant by "international". The European Union was also responsible for labour standards and it was an international body. She suggested that the word "international" in the Workers' amendment be changed to"fundamental", as the ILO was not the only international body mandated to promote labour standards, whereas its standards were regarded as fundamental. The Government member of Canada felt that the ILO's role and mandate should be strengthened, while noting some of the fundamental rights spelled out in the Declaration also appeared in other international instruments, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Government member of Germany wondered if the Legal Adviser could suggest how not to conflict with the mandate of the United Nations; indeed, the European Union, the United Nations and the Council of Europe (under the European Social Charter) also dealt with labour standards. The Government members of France raised similar concerns, noting that non-governmental organizations could also promote standards. The Government member of the United States felt that the Workers' subamendment, as amended by the United Kingdom was realistic. The various examples given of other organizations dealing with labour standards demonstrated that the Asia and Pacific position was not accurate. The Government member of Sweden also felt that the Workers' subamendment was most suitable. The Government member of Finland suggested that language such as "while recognizing that the ILO has the international mandate ..." gave the ILO exclusive mandate to promote standards, whereas others, including NGOs, could also promote standards.

249. The Government member of Mexico noted that the fact that regional bodies could deal with labour standards did not mean that they had an exclusive mandate at universal level. He did not question that other bodies could deal with labour standards but the ILO was the only organization to have this as a constitutional mandate. This had been stated at Singapore and he suggested the following words: "Whereas the ILO is universally acknowledged as the competent organization to establish, supervise and promote international labour standards."

250. The Worker members pointed out that the text reflected the message given by the trade ministers' meeting in Singapore, where it was stated that the ILO was "the competent body to set and deal with standards" which reflected the words "establish and supervise". He pointed out that Singapore had then added "... and we affirm our support for its work in promoting them". These two points had been made very clearly.

251. The Government member of Japan felt that the position of his group was very close to that of the Workers. There were grave misunderstandings on the part of some Western Government members including the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and the United States, because the Workers had never denied that the ILO was mandated to set and supervise the international labour standards. It was not relevant to bring in the "European Union" in this regard, because the European Union was a regional organization and when the group said that the ILO was the exclusively mandated international organization, this did not deny the fact that the European Union had a mandate over the limited number of countries. Therefore, he felt that difference of opinion was only how to formulate the issue of "promotion".

252. The Employer members felt that the discussion had been on details and semantics, and did not feel there was much difference between the Workers' text and that of the Asia and Pacific group. They felt that the language implied that the ILO was the primary or pre-eminent body in this area, but did not mean that it was the only competent body. He agreed that the Singapore Declaration had referred to the promotion of labour standards, but the WTO's way of promoting the standards was through economic growth and the ILO had other ways of promoting standards.

253. The Worker members once again stressed that they felt the ILO should be able to share the task of promoting labour standards, and gave as an example the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. They suggested a further amendment:

254. The Government member of Mexico could accept this text, provided that the adjective "international" was put before "organization" and that the word "labour" was inserted before "rights".

255. Following a brief period of consultations, the Worker members suggested the following further amended text for Point 1.5, as follows:

The Government member of Pakistan suggested that the word "supported" be replaced with "acknowledged" and that the original paragraph proposed by the Worker members be used, with the addition of the word "promote" in the first clause which would refer to the ILO as "the constitutionally mandated international organization to establish, supervise and promote international labour standards". The Worker members accepted the replacement of the word "supported" with "acknowledged" but objected to the repetition of the word "promote". The Government member of the United Kingdom suggested that initial capital letters be used with the term "international labour standards", to specify that the reference was to standards adopted by the ILO.

256. The Government member of Pakistan accepted the latest formulation on the strict condition that the concept of promotion be added to the first phrase ("to establish, supervise and promote"). The Worker members, rejecting the suggestion, noted that promotion, although in the mandate of the ILO, was also relevant to the work of other organizations, and referred as an example to the reference in the WTO Ministerial Declaration of Singapore to its support for the ILO's promotion of international labour standards. The Government member of Mexico considered that adding the word "promote" in the first phrase would not imply exclusivity but simply that the Organization was mandated to do those things.

257. The Worker members proposed an alternative formulation:

In response, the Government of Pakistan accepted the addition of promotion together with establishment and supervision, but observed that the deletion of the crucial "the organization" created a difficulty in his view; he suggested that one could add the word "also" in the latter phrase so as to read "and is also universally acknowledged in its work". In response, the Worker members suggested a further formulation:

The Government member of Pakistan observed that the reinsertion of the word "support" had earlier been noted as difficult to his and other delegations, and suggested the addition of the word "international" before "organization" and the reinsertion of the idea earlier proposed as follows: "international support in its work as the exclusive organization in promoting fundamental rights". The Worker members accepted the term "international" but firmly rejected the second proposal, noting that they would, however, accept the addition of the term "labour" in front of the word "rights". Recalling that the exercise involved a Declaration on a matter of central importance to the ILO, they wished not to vote because it would erode that political and moral authority. The Government member of Pakistan suggested another alternative to the last proposal, namely to change the word "support" to the word "acknowledge". The Worker members responded that removing the word "support" would remove the shared value of promotion that was necessary, and noted that the WTO had even offered to assist in promotion without being asked. The Employer members stated that they could have accepted many of the proposals presented and that, in their view, none of the differences was of any consequence whatsoever.

258. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of his Government, favoured consensus as the means of agreeing to the text and wondered whether agreement existed already on the first half of the sentence, and only the second half remained at issue. In efforts to assist the discussion, on behalf of his Government, he questioned whether this could be resolved by replacing "the competent organization" by "a competent organization" in the subamendment submitted by the Asia and Pacific group to the amendment to Point 1.5 submitted by the IMEC group. The Government member of the United Kingdom suggested replacing the word "support" with "acknowledge" because she felt that positive schemes such as the European Union Generalized System of Preferences incorporating labour rights considerations could otherwise be compromised. The Government member of the United States was not enthusiastic about any of the formulations put forward, but found interesting the last suggestion made by Japan subamending the last formulation suggested by the Workers. The Government member of Egypt accepted the current formulation, as subamended by the Government member of Japan but suggested that the text include the words "universal acknowledgment and support", and delete "a competent international organization". The Worker members noted that the word "support" had disappeared from the proposed text despite the initial reference to it by the Government member of Egypt, and stood by their original language modified by the phrase "enjoys universal support in its work in promoting fundamental labour rights as the expression of its constitutional principles".

259. After a suspension of the session, the Worker members introduced a proposed new text that read as follows:

This text was very much inspired by the Singapore Declaration. They also explained that they had put the second part of the sentence in the present tense because it was a statement of fact.

260. The Employer members pointed out that they had commented at the beginning that they would be guided by the Singapore Declaration and supported the Workers' amendment.

261. The Government member of India wished to facilitate the work of the Committee and therefore offered two variants to this amendment. The first variant read as follows:

The second variant was:

262. The Worker members suggested it was appropriate to consider these as formal subamendments, to which the Government member of India agreed. The Government members of South Africa and Hungary supported the Worker members' subamendment, believing that it was the fairest compromise that could be reached and that it was modelled on a text that had been adopted at a high political level at Singapore. The Government member of Namibia, speaking on behalf of the African Government group, Botswana, Côte d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mauritius, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe, accepted that the wording was on the line of that adopted in Singapore. His group therefore accepted the Workers' subamendment; however, as Government member of Namibia, his preference was for Point 6 of the Declaration in the Office text.

263. The Government members of Sweden, Switzerland and Argentina also supported the Workers' subamendment. The Government member of the United States, although he was unenthusiastic about the Workers' subamendment, could accept it only because it was couched in language that had been previously accepted on a difficult issue.

264. The Government member of Egypt was puzzled by the reference to Singapore. The ILO did not take its mandate from other organizations, especially from trade ministers who had decided on this text at the last hour at their meeting in Singapore and under pressure. He was more in favour of the subamendments submitted by India. The Government member of Venezuela agreed with the Government member of Egypt, feeling that this was a matter for the ILO. He rather supported the first variant submitted by India.

265. The Chairperson decided to freeze the discussion on this point for consultations to take place. After a point of order concerning the amendments on the table, the Chairperson ruled that the Committee should consider three subamendments in the following order: India variant 2, India variant 1 and then the Workers' subamendment. The Worker members, while accepting this ruling, wished to place on record that this should not be considered as a precedent to submitting more than one subamendment at a time.

266. The Chairperson opened the discussion on the conceptual point of what he termed the "protectionist measures/comparative advantage" language. The Worker members explained that they felt that the text of Point 6 of the Office text was not appropriate in the Declaration and should therefore be deleted from the operative part. They could, however, accept a new paragraph after 1.5 in the Preamble.

267. The Employer members favoured dealing with the issue in the Preamble since the ILO had no particular competency on trade-related questions. At the request of the Government of India, the Employer members clarified that they would withdraw the amendment they had submitted to Point 6, and replace it with other wording if consensus were achieved to place Point 6 into the Preamble.

268. The Government member of the United Arab Emirates, recalling his earlier statement relating to Point 6, stressed the importance of the point to be placed in the operative part of the Declaration, while promising flexibility with regard to the language proposed. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for his country and some others to accept the Declaration. The Government member of Namibia, on behalf of the African Government group, Botswana, Côte d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mauritius, Namibia, South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe, stated their concern to maintain the language as it was used in earlier text. The Government member of Mexico confirmed his understanding that, while proceeding first on concepts, then on placement, the debate would not prejudge amendments submitted, the withdrawal of which, including his own Government's amendment submitted under Point 6, would depend on how the debate went. His amendment had been submitted to ensure emphasis on the lack of any relationship between standards and trade relations and to stress that pre-existing trade relationships would remain intact. All trade instruments would be relevant, since it was impossible to identify who would determine whether a trade instrument was protectionist or not. Furthermore, the clause would close the door on using the Declaration or follow-up as a pretext under article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Finally, such a safeguard could not be contained in the Preamble.

269. The Government member of Sweden noted his concern over the procedure and hoped that the amendment he co-submitted for deletion would be supported, to which the Government member of Egypt objected. The Government member of Côte d'Ivoire supported the statement of the Government member of Namibia and that of the Government member of Brazil respecting the safeguard clause on both aspects -- protectionism and comparative advantage. The Government member of Uganda also associated his delegation with the statement of the Government member of Namibia on behalf of the African government group. He stressed the centrality of Point 6, supporting its maintenance in the operative part, but that he was open to amendments submitted with a view to reaching consensus.

270. The Government member of Japan, on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, noted that Point 6 was the safeguard for the Declaration so as not to undermine the credibility of the Organization. In particular, he highlighted three aspects: the Declaration should not be used: (i) to justify the use of labour standards for protectionist purposes; (ii) for either unilateral or multilateral protectionist trade measures; and (iii) to permit trade measures that call into question the comparative advantage of countries.

271. The Government member of the United States addressed his amendment to delete Point 6, and noted what in his view were contradictory propositions voiced by some members, namely that the Organization had nothing to do with trade and yet that the Declaration had to deal with the notion of trade. He further noted that the proponents of the point were talking about a new obligation to be created by the ILO respecting the workings of another institution, for which the Committee had no authority. The discussion even went further to focus on all trade measures, and even beyond this to all measures of any kind, which involved many other institutions. He said this was unacceptable. The Government member of Argentina, supporting deletion of the point, agreed with statements made by the United States on this issue in earlier discussions at the Governing Body. He felt that Point 1.5 and Point 6 indicated a clash of principles between the sovereignty of the Organization to consider subjects within its competence and, to that extent, it appeared to him that the Singapore Declaration was not valid in this area and that the ILO would be invading the area of the WTO if it decided what was and was not protectionist. The question was whether agreements reached in one organization were valid in another. If so, his Government would be ready to support the WTO language and was not ready to go further than the Singapore compromise. If not, then the subject was totally outside the competence of the ILO. He was not prepared to discuss how to decide what constituted a protectionist measure or to discuss a provision of the GATT.

272. The Government member of Venezuela agreed that the Declaration had nothing to do with trade and that, since the text must be agreed to by consensus, he supported the amendments to Point 6 submitted by the Asia and Pacific group, Mexico and Bolivia. Because of the importance of the text, he believed the language should not be deleted but rather made clear with an explicit reference to unilateral or any other trade measures whatsoever, and should not be placed in the Preamble but in the operative part. The Government member of Sudan stressed the fears of the developing countries respecting the need for the point because of the effects of the Declaration on their economies, and that the point was only asking for reassurance. He supported placing the point in the operative part, and associated himself with the statement made by the Government member of Egypt. The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic noted that Point 6 was based on commercial and labour standards and was intended to ensure that the Declaration would not be used to justify individual and collective measures; it must be in the operative part.

273. The Government member of Japan, on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, recalling his earlier statement, proposed some concrete wording, after consultations with the Latin American group, to revise the amendment submitted by the Asia and Pacific group, as follows:

In response, the Government member of Cuba recalled that the subject of trade and labour standards had been discussed both at the Governing Body and the Conference for a long time, in particular because some had attempted to create a link between trade measures and labour standards. Whether or not other organizations had addressed the subject, it was appropriate for the ILO to do so and to state that labour standards should not be used to create obstacles for trade. She supported the amendment submitted by Mexico and Bolivia, supplemented by some ideas in the amendment just resubmitted by the Asia and Pacific group, and she concluded that it should be in the operative part.

274. The Government member of Germany affiliated itself with the positions taken that Point 6 should be deleted as superfluous but left open the possibility of a compromise. He explained that his delegation had problems in understanding why the same delegations said that there was no reference between trade and social standards, but in a Declaration about basic worker rights those delegations wanted to have a provision relating to trade. If some such language were adopted, it should be in the Preamble. Associating himself with the statements of the Government members of Germany and Belgium, the Government member of Italy supported keeping the point for its reassuring value to certain delegations, but placing it in the Preamble. The latter should not be undervalued since, in the ILO Constitution, the Preamble contained all the purposes of the Organization.

275. The Government member of Mexico, reserving its amendment submitted under Point 6, supported the concepts in the text submitted by the Government of Japan, on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, opposed the deletion of Point 6, and insisted that the safeguard remain in the Declaration. Point 6 was intended to prevent standards being invoked for external purposes which had nothing to do with labour policy and labour relations.

276. The Government member of India supported the proposal made by Japan on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group and noted that those who raised the relationship of trade and labour standards need look no further than their own positions and policies to find an explanation for the need for Point 6. The language on Point 6 was not intended to encroach on the competence of other organizations. The key point was that the Declaration should not be used as a pretext for trade measures, and such a safeguard for ensuring this was essential for the credibility of and support for the Declaration and the implementation of its follow-up. He further stated that placement in the operative section was absolutely necessary.

277. The Government member of France found that the three asterisks before Point 6 in the Office text highlighted the fact that the paragraph was inappropriate where it appeared. He agreed with the proposition that the contribution to be made by the point was to ensure that the Declaration not be used as pretext for protectionist measures or those that called into question countries' comparative advantage. Placing Point 6 at the end was not logical but rather undermined the value of the Declaration. He agreed to the existing language, but he felt that the Point should perhaps be located elsewhere; in the Preamble or perhaps in a footnote.

278. The Government member of Uruguay felt that Point 6 was indeed more than a safeguard and was actually a fundamental general principle. Rather than encroaching on the territory of other organizations, he believed that this Point would affirm the principles of the Organization. He favoured the original Office text which he wished to see in the operative paragraphs since its principle was as integral as the dosage instructions on a bottle of medicine. The Government member of Botswana reaffirmed that the African Governments group's position was to remove the asterisks, although it was open to discussion on wording. The fact that the point still remained, despite the earlier discussions, indicated its importance, warranting its place in the operative provisions. The language that the Declaration "does not authorize or require" did not go far enough, and should be amended to read "does not use".

279. The Government member of Guatemala noted that, earlier, when the Workers' group had presented its amendment to Point 1.5, she had requested time to reflect because of the fundamental importance of the subject dealt with there and in Point 6. She acknowledged that the non-link between trade and labour relations was being used by both proponents and opponents of Point 6, but she pointed out that, in her view, the establishment of a non-link was what she and others wished to achieve. She felt that, in practice, there were cases in which that link was used and ideally that should not be the case. She noted her satisfaction that some Government members, including those of Belgium and Germany, were in favour of including the concept, and supported placing it in the operative part of the instrument.

280. The Government member of Egypt supported the inclusion of an operative paragraph to eliminate any possibility that the Declaration might be used for protectionist measures against developing countries. If no such paragraph were included, doubts and suspicions would be raised in these countries. Noting the impasse in the Uruguay Round negotiations on this very issue, he reflected that the issue had then been brought to the ILO, and the Declaration must not permit any such objectionable measures.

281. The Government member of Thailand, on behalf of the ASEAN countries, noted that the long list of speakers reflected the importance of the issue and placed utmost importance on the three aspects outlined earlier by the Asia and Pacific group, and they supported that group's latest proposal.

282. The Employer members concluded that they had supported inclusion of the substance of Point 6 for some time, and that a credible and meaningful follow-up was one of the best safeguards. They further observed that the existing text of Point 6 was verbatim from the Singapore ministerial text which had been agreed to by most of the governments in the Committee. Addressing what that language really meant, they referred to the report which said that the Declaration did not create any new obligations nor release countries from any existing obligations under international law, including those arising under any international treaty. The Employer members believed there was a middle path to solving the problem by creating a new Point 6, which might be found in the context of the amendment of the United Kingdom submitted to Point 1.5 with two changes made: substitute the word "stresses that" for "whereas", delete the phrase "or otherwise serving as a point of reference", and add the word "or" between the words "requiring" and "authorizing" .

283. Supporting the formulation put forward by the Employer members, the Worker members contrasted the enthusiasm of Governments in the plenary for the Declaration and follow-up, with the debate in the Committee on Point 6, and then noted that a number of issues in Point 6 were clearly outside the competence of the Organization, including the revised amendment submitted by the Asia and Pacific group. The Worker members, while sympathetic to the need for safeguards, believed that they were better left outside the body of the text.

284. In response to several requests for clarification, the Legal Adviser addressed the juridical implications of the Declaration as a whole and more specifically pertaining to Point 3. First, he emphasized three essential points of agreement. (See the full text of the Legal Adviser's opinion in paragraph 325.) The Government member of Egypt then requested that the Legal Adviser address the extent to which Point 1.2 of the Declaration in its present formulation, and the follow-up, would be considered to fall within the mandate of the ILO. The Legal Adviser confirmed that they were within the ILO's mandate.

285. Noting his initial support for deleting Point 6, the Government member of the Netherlands accepted in a spirit of compromise the placement of the point in either the Preamble or the operative part, but expressed dissatisfaction with all of the proposed amendments to the text itself. The Government member of Canada noted that his delegation did not see a particular need for the point. However, the inclusion of some provision against protectionism had been underlined as vital to some delegations and he was struck by the high degree of convergence on the need to avoid protectionism. Believing that the concept was agreed, he saw no need for another debate such as that which led to the Singapore Declaration, and urged that the same language as that used in Singapore be adopted in the present Declaration. The Government member of the United States was opposed to Point 6, and saw no basis to suggest those supporting the Declaration and its follow-up were seeking a pretext for protectionism. His Government's policy sought to encourage open trade and the comparative advantage of other countries. He recognized, however, the limitation of this Committee to take measures on trade matters beyond its scope and mandate which might conflict with the opinions of organizations with authority on this matter.

286. The Government member of New Zealand recalled that, as a country with a comparative advantage in agriculture, his country had suffered from restrictionist trade measures for a long time, and sympathized with the majority of countries on the Committee whose comparative advantage was found in low labour costs. He noted that standards set for excellent reasons in the fields, such as health and food standards, had been misused in ways that were damaging to trade and those people producing the traded products. Those were the people the ILO was set up to protect. He supported the amendment submitted by the Asia and Pacific group and believed it addressed restrictive trade measures, measures of a protectionist nature, and measures which would call into question the comparative advantage of any country.

287. The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran recalled that, from the beginning the debate on the Declaration had been overshadowed by the discussion on the social clause, and that there had been efforts to use discussions on labour standards in order to introduce trade measures and sanctions. His delegation supported three points proposed by the Asia and Pacific group: (i) rejection of the use of the Declaration and its follow-up for trade measures, which was the same in his view as rejecting the social clause; (ii) opposition to protectionism; and (iii) not to call into question the comparative advantage of nations. By adopting a clear language on this issue, he believed that the ILO was not going to create any obligations for others; rather, this would help define the scope and purpose of the Declaration.

288. The Government member of Pakistan asserted that the language in the Asia and Pacific draft was essential and that it had to be in the operative part. There was no contradiction between asserting the lack of relationship between trade and labour standards and supporting the point, because some States continued to take such measures due to their position and power. It was therefore essential to ensure that the Declaration would not be misused for those purposes. He believed a strong supervision of labour standards could be effected without the follow-up. Although he had had misgivings about the effect of the annual review on ratifications, his delegation had especially criticized the global report, which he believed might subject his Government to criticism. Furthermore, he saw no merit in hinging the ILO's credibility on the Declaration, and requested that, since developing countries had been willing to compromise on the follow-up, they should be accorded Point 6. On the issue of institutional competence and the argument that the ILO should not encroach on the authority of other organizations, he asked which organization condoned protectionism or allowed intervention based on labour standards, on whose mandate the ILO would be seen as encroaching. In any event, prohibiting unacceptable actions could not be construed as imposing obligations. Rejecting Point 6 would only fuel suspicions about the real intent of the Declaration and its follow-up.

289. Recalling the amendment he had submitted together with the Government member of Mexico, the Government member of Bolivia agreed with the statement of Mexico that the safeguards in the Declaration should define the scope of the Organization. The Government member of Switzerland noted his earlier support for deletion of the point but sympathized with the delegations which feared protectionism. He noted that the Swiss Federal Council President Couchepin, who chaired the recent WTO ministerial meeting in Geneva, made a clear statement against protectionism in his speech to the plenary of the Conference. Switzerland depended heavily on trade and wholly supported trade liberalization, believing that protectionism was bad economics because it protected the interest of the few at the expense of the many. His delegation could agree with any language which opposed protectionism but could not agree with language that would go beyond that adopted in Singapore, and which might call into question, for instance, what he considered promotional strategies of the European Union's Generalized System of Preferences.

290. The Government member of the United Kingdom understood the logic of the Worker members and the United States in supporting the deletion of Point 6. However, mindful that the Declaration was not a legally binding document, her Government would not oppose language, either in the Preamble or the operative part, that would satisfy the need for a safeguard against the Declaration being used for protectionist purposes. She found acceptable the Workers' language proposed earlier, or something near that text, so long as it was similar to the wording of the Singapore Declaration.

291. The Government member of Lebanon wondered why the Declaration could not reflect the same type of agreements against protectionism and comparative advantage to which other international meetings had managed to agree. She supported the placement of Point 6 in the operative part as a new conceptual substantive element operating as a safeguard. The Government member of Brazil agreed with the secretariat's proposal on Point 6, noting that progress was being made. The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic supported the placement of the text in the operative part, noting that the Declaration and follow-up should not be used to affect trade measures or the comparative advantage of countries with low pay. The Government member of the Republic of Korea supported the statement made by the Asia and Pacific group, and believed the text should be put in the operative part.

292. The Government member of Hungary supported the text under discussion, observing that labour standards could be used for protectionist purposes and emphasized the words "any country" since transition economies were also very interested in the question because many had a comparative advantage with educated labour forces. He was flexible about whether the text, once agreed, should be placed in the Preamble or the operative part. The Government member of Norway, recalling the Nordic countries' amendment to delete Point 6, noted that trade issues were outside the mandate of the ILO and certainly should not appear in the operative part. However, in view of the discussion, he accepted having an agreed text on the issue, preferably in the Preamble.

293. The Government member of Colombia reiterated the interest of his Government in maintaining the text and placing it in the operative part. The Government member of Singapore, speaking on behalf of the ASEAN group, supported the views expressed by the Asia and Pacific group, requesting that the text adopted incorporate three points: that the Declaration and follow-up should not be used for (i) protectionist purposes, (ii) introducing punitive unilateral or collective trade measures, or (iii) questioning the comparative advantage of any country. The Government member of Germany, recalling his earlier statement that he would accept a reference to the point but only in the Preamble, stated that in view of the discussion, his delegation was ready to consider placement in the operative part. However, he was not in a position to accept a text that would go beyond the agreed wording of the Singapore Declaration.

294. Agreeing with the Asia and Pacific group, the Government member of China noted that the point concerned trade and was one of principle. She believed that if the point did not refer to protectionism, the Committee would be frustrating its own purposes. She characterized the universality and representativeness of the ILO as being wider than that of the WTO, and emphasized that merely quoting the Singapore Declaration was not acceptable.

295. The Government member of Finland noted his delegation's support for the amendment to delete Point 6 but was quite ready to discuss whether a compromise text could be found which would meet the concerns involved and believed the text would be better placed in the Preamble. The Government member of Argentina recalled his earlier reservations on Point 6 but, noting the statement of the Government member of Brazil and having discussed with the Government member of Uruguay, was prepared to accept the original Office wording reflecting the Singapore Declaration, although his delegation would have liked to accept the statement proposed by the Worker members.

296. The Government member of Algeria recalled her Government's position that the text should be placed in the operative part. The Government member of Namibia stated that its earlier position expressed as to the placement in the operative part was acceptable to the following African governments: Botswana, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Mauritius, Namibia, South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe. While supporting the Office draft, he noted that they might have some amendments as to wording. The Government member of Guatemala stated his Government's agreement to retaining the paragraph in the operative part, and suggested informal consultations to achieve consensus on the wording.

297. The Employer members stated that the preceding debate made clear that perhaps the Committee should seriously consider including a sentence that said that "the World Trade Organization is the competent body to establish trade rules". They underscored that the Declaration and a credible and meaningful follow-up, as well as the consensual process of its adoption, would do more in terms of a safeguard than the point under discussion. With respect to the language on effects outside the ILO, it was clear that the Declaration would not create new legal obligations, nor would it release States from other obligations under international law, particularly those arising under multilateral treaties. While the ILO had a competence in the social sphere, they noted that the point dealt with a competence that resided in other organizations. They believed that those supporting the inclusion of this text denied the linkage between labour and trade yet pursued it in the text. Recalling their original position that the point should be in the Preamble, they now agreed that it could be placed in the operative part. They observed that the Committee seemed to have two basic choices: first, a wording that would be within the competence of the Committee, at least to the extent that it rested on choices already made by those in the trade area; and second, as reflected in the amendment submitted by the Asia and Pacific group, a wording which, in their view, would take the Committee well beyond the competence of the ILO and could not be supported. They believed that the amendment submitted by the Employer members would stress areas in which the ILO had specific competence, and at the same time, would recognize the Singapore language in its totality, addressing both protectionism and comparative advantage.

298. The Worker members recalled the Employer members' position that the point was dealing with matters outside the competence of the ILO and would serve to link labour and trade. Supporting its placement in the Preamble, they recalled the earlier statement of the Government member of Italy that the effect of the Preamble should not be underestimated. Particularly in light of the strong debate on wording, they noted the advantage of the language in their amendment being identical to the Singapore agreement. Going beyond the references in that agreement, which mentioned protectionism and comparative advantage, would go beyond the competence of the ILO and would remove the credibility of the Declaration.

299. The Government member of Côte d'Ivoire clarified for the record that the amendment to Point 6 which had been submitted under his Government's name was to be considered as submitted by the Government of Namibia on behalf of the following governments: Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Mauritius, Namibia, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. This amendment sought to change the text of Point 6 to:

The Government member of Italy, recalling his earlier position that Point 6 should be located in the Preamble, noted that there was now room for more flexibility regarding placement given the Worker and Employer members' earlier statements on the point. The Government member of Brazil insisted that the question of content and placement were very much linked, and formally moved that the Committee consider the following language to allow Point 6 to be placed in the operative part:

He believed the new language could accommodate many different views on the subject, and noted that this text also mentioned labour standards, as appropriate for the nature of the Declaration. The Government member of Hungary seconded the Brazilian amendment. The Worker members supported the content of the Brazilian amendment, and were prepared to propose a subamendment to it to begin with the word "Recognizing" in order to place it in the Preamble. Noting that undoubtedly many variations were possible, the Employer members supported the amendment by the Government of Brazil as an amendment to Point 6.

300. The Chairperson noted that several amendments had been submitted to replace Point 6, in addition to proposals to delete it, namely the amendment of the Worker members:

the amendment of the Employer members:

the amendment of the Asia and Pacific group:

and the latest one by the Government member of Brazil seconded by Hungary (quoted in paragraph 299). The Government member of Chile believed that the safeguard clause could only have the same effect as the Declaration as a whole; since the Declaration did not involve any legal obligations and was of a promotional purpose, the safeguard clause would also not be binding but rather of a political nature. Nonetheless, he would agree with the majority that seemed to prefer placement in the operative part; as to the language, he could support either the original text or that proposed by Brazil.

301. The Government member of Namibia, speaking on behalf of Botswana, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mauritius, Namibia, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe, proposed the following replacement text:

He explained that his group wanted to keep the language used earlier on the issues under debate and, in seeking consensus, had imported certain elements from the proposals made by other groups.

302. The Government member of India reflected that there was a need to bring together the range of ideas in a way that would command the widest possible consensus in the Committee, and offered a subamendment to the proposal submitted by Namibia and the other African countries, which would incorporate the element mentioned by the Government member of Brazil and would align the text with the views of the Asia and Pacific region. His proposal read as follows:

303. The Employer members noted that new written proposals had been submitted earlier because oral proposals were difficult to work with, and furthermore that amendments should be considered one by one. They noted that the Brazilian proposal avoided the use of the word "trade" while the Indian proposal, which used the word "including" with "trade measures", opened a chasm that could not be spanned. The Worker members requested clarification as to how to proceed with the pending amendments. In response, the Chairperson noted that two schools of thought were emerging, one represented by the Brazilian proposal and the other by the Asia and Pacific, Namibian and Indian proposals, and wondered whether informal consultations would be of assistance. The Worker members suggested that, for clarity, two texts be prepared by the countries concerned for review by the Committee. The session was then adjourned while two texts were prepared by informal working groups.

304. When the session resumed, the Chairperson noted that two versions of the text, for the sake of easy reference termed option A (proposed by the Government members of Botswana, Brazil, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Hungary, Mauritius, Namibia, South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe) and option B (proposed by the Asia and Pacific group, Egypt and Mexico), were now before the Committee for Point 6, and that the other amendments relating thereto were to be shelved temporarily. They read as follows:

Option A

Option B

305. The Government member of Mexico rejected option A, noting that not all trade measures or instruments which might use the follow-up were protectionist. Some trade measures would have to do with banning certain products from certain countries, while allowing the importation of the same product from other countries. Thus, a safeguard clause would be ineffective if it still allowed the misuse of the follow-up as a justification for trade measures. He wanted the Declaration to state expressly that it could not be invoked for such purposes. The Worker members wondered how the safeguard clause in a non-legally binding document could protect anyone in any event.

306. The Government member of Egypt agreed with much of what had been said by the Government member of Mexico and noted that much of the content of option B had received a consensus at the start but attitudes seemed to have changed. He objected to option A because it omitted the word "trade" and the words "other measures" which connoted economic measures, obstacles preventing economic cooperation, and measures taken by governments, financial institutions, and international or regional organizations.

307. The Government member of Venezuela agreed with the statement of the Government member of Mexico, and found option A to be vague. The Government member of Argentina said that, although he preferred the text proposed by the Chairperson, he could accept option A if the word "trade" were inserted between "measures" and "protectionist". He noted that option B appeared to be based on several false premises. First, in reality, the defence of fundamental human rights was not related to trade measures, but rather the promotion of those rights was greatly favoured by the adoption of some trade measures which benefited them. The application of the human rights clauses of the Generalized Systems of Preferences could constitute a legitimate means to promote fundamental rights. The second false premise, on which option B and other similar proposals seem to be based, was that this link could now be broken by a safeguard clause in the Declaration. This link was a characteristic of the rules of the game in the world of globalization, in which the fight against child labour and contemporary forms of slavery had been put into motion and nothing could stop that. The speaker stressed that the proponents to option B took a conservative attitude regarding the results of the Uruguay Round, which was a curious paradox in light of the attitude of the same developing countries in the last ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization. His Government, for example, considered that the Uruguay Round was only the first step in the process of liberalization of international trade, in which the developing countries' interests in that regard were not yet achieved and they had to continue promoting liberalization with measures which could help them. Hence, nothing justified a conservative attitude on the part of the developing countries, since that process would only progress with the promotion of universal realization of fundamental labour standards. Therefore, he opposed option B, which he deemed prejudicial to the liberalization of international trade. In his opinion, the safeguard clause should not be included in the Declaration because it fell within the mandate of the WTO and needed to be decided by that organization. He believed that to include the safeguard clause in the ILO Declaration was tantamount to building a dam in the desert. In practical terms, if a country were identified as practising child or forced labour, or discrimination against certain workers and, for that reason, faced the type of "sanctions" contemplated, that country could, if option B were adopted, invoke this Declaration to challenge the sanctions even in cases of flagrant infringements of fundamental labour standards. In fact, his delegation understood that the objective of the Declaration was to abolish child labour and to eliminate discrimination at work and forced labour and not to define a procedure for discussion on the absence of consequences. He wondered whether the Committee wanted to send the contrary message. For that reason, he wished to maintain the consensus language of the Singapore Declaration.

308. The Employer members felt that it was necessary to look at both options together, pointing out that there were words in both options which were the language of the WTO, the legal significance of which was beyond the competence of the ILO. For instance, they referred to the words "be used to serve as a basis or justification for" in option A, which were the terms used to open proceedings in the WTO, and suggested that these be replaced by "authorized". They could agree that the word "trade" should be introduced between "protectionist" and "measures". They had more difficulty with option B, as it failed to mention the use of labour standards for protectionist purposes, and, in particular, the term"any other measures" was very open-ended.

309. The Government member of Japan, on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, found it difficult to accept option A. He reiterated his group's statement that three basic elements should be contained in a Declaration: (i) the Declaration and follow-up should not justify the use of labour standards for protectionist purposes; (ii) they should not serve as a justification for the introduction of unilateral or multilateral trade measures; and (iii) they should not call into question the comparative advantage of any country. His group felt that the element pertaining to "trade measures" was missing in option A and appreciated the proposal made by the Employers to add the word "trade". The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran preferred option B as option A made no reference to trade measures. The Government member of Guatemala could not support option A because it failed to allay certain concerns and could be misused. Indeed, there were concerns that the Declaration could be used to sanction countries in which human rights situations were not perfect on account of their inadequate level of economic development.

310. The Government member of Canada preferred option A with amendments proposed by the Employer members. The Government member of Germany also opted for option A. With reference to some Governments' concerns that countries could use this Declaration for protectionist purposes, he said he had come to this assembly to improve workers' rights -- not because he wanted a springboard for protectionist trade measures. He agreed with the insertion of "trade" between "protectionist" and "measures".

311. The Government member of the Syrian Arab Republic associated himself with the Government member of Egypt, and preferred option B, as did the Government member of Sudan, who felt that it was important that a reference be made to the fact that punitive measures should not be taken.

312. The Worker members could agree with the amendments to option A put forward by the Employer members. They felt that the reference to "any other measures" in option B was not credible, and was entirely open-ended. They also agreed that trade measures per se were a matter for the WTO.

313. The Government member of Brazil, on behalf of those who had proposed option A, summarized the various positions that had been put forward up to this point in the discussion. He agreed that the notion of "trade" might be included in option A, and felt that this might meet with Japan's concern that reference to trade measures was missing in option A. He felt that the last part of option A was formulated better than the end of option B; "any other measures that call into question the comparative advantage ..." was a projection into the future. The language in option A reflected better the fact that the problem exited now. He agreed also with the Employer members that "authorizes" was a better term than "to serve as a basis". However, he felt that a reference to justification of these measures was an important point and he suggested putting "to justify or authorize".

314. The Government member of Switzerland supported option A because it allowed for promotional, incentive-based measures, as did the Government member of Sweden who was also taking the floor on behalf of Norway. The Government member of the United Kingdom, on behalf of France, Belgium, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal and Austria, agreed with option A, as did the Government member of Denmark.

315. The Government member of Namibia felt that option A had dealt with the Asia and Pacific group's concerns. He felt that the term "any other measures" in option B was extremely ambiguous; he wished to see a reference to justification retained in option A because it would add more weight to the text; he agreed that "trade" could be added; and he believed that option A was closer to the main concern of the Declaration -- which was about fundamental principles. The Government member of Uruguay preferred option A, provided that "trade" was inserted after the word "protectionist". The Government member of Chile felt that option A was closer to the objective of strengthening workers' rights; he also agreed with the insertion of the word "trade". The Government member of New Zealand could not support a Declaration that could be used to justify restrictions on trade. He felt that option A, which referred only to protectionist measures was deficient in this area but could accept a change along the lines of that suggested by the Government member of Mexico.

316. The Government member of Egypt accepted that "trade" could be added in option A, but suggested putting a comma after "measures" and replacing the last part of the sentence ("thereby calling into question ...") by "or other economic measures".

317. The Government member of the United States had always felt that it was better not to include this issue in a Declaration because trade measures were beyond the competence of this Committee. He did not agree with option B, but was prepared to "keep listening" to the discussion on option A.

318. The Government member of Mexico was unsure about the legal scope of the Declaration or the scope of the follow-up which had been barely outlined. He pointed out that the Declaration and follow-up were going to evolve; although they might not have legal significance now, they could become customary law. He wished to be engaged in the work of the Declaration but did not want it to be used for other purposes such as embargoes or social labelling. He could accept option B, although he would have preferred stronger language.

319. The Government member of India, referring to option A, felt that the message was fairly clear up to the word "promotion". He had doubts about "authorize"; where was this authorization to come from? He suggested amending the language to read "promotion of trade measures including those of a protectionist nature". He also proposed replacing the last part of the sentence by "or other measures including those calling into question the comparative advantage of any country". The Government member of Pakistan felt that there were significant aspects missing in option A.

320. The Government member of Venezuela pointed out that the more he heard, the more he was convinced that there was a need to adopt a safeguard clause. He felt that there should be a reference to "unilateral measures of any nature" and supported option B. The Government member of Bolivia also supported option B. The Government member of Cuba recalled that during the past years' discussions many countries had been in favour of the ideas embodied in option B; concessions had been made and he felt that option B now represented "the bottom line" for developing countries.

321. The Government member of Sri Lanka felt that, for his delegation, some of the most integral and indispensable components were reflected in Point 6. The three terms "protectionist nature", "trade measures" and "comparative advantage" needed to be clearly enunciated in Point 6. Option A lacked the term "trade measures" and if it was not duly incorporated, his delegation would have difficulty to pursue negotiation on a constructive and progressive basis. Obviously, there were pressing reasons and rationale for this legitimate request. In reference to Point 6, inclusion of the above three terms was basically the minimum settling point.

322. The Worker members felt that a consensus seemed to be emerging that option A was better with the addition of the word "trade", and proposed a subamendment drawing on the intervention of the Government member of Mexico:

323. The Employer members felt that there seemed no combination of words for which the Committee could reach consensus and that a vote might be inevitable. The Government member of Brazil felt that the time for voting had still not come. He suggested that the sponsors of options A and B meet outside the Committee room to see if there was a possibility of submitting one text.

324. The Chairperson agreed with the Employer members that there were two major areas of difference between the sponsors of options A and B. The first concerned the use of the words "shall be used to serve as a basis or justification for" in option A; the second concerned the reference to "any other measures" in option B. After consulting the Committee, he decided to comply with the suggestion made by the Government member of Brazil. Before the break in the meeting the Government member of Pakistan repeated that he had fears that the proponents of this Declaration would use it for protectionist purposes. He stressed that his delegation would not accept ambiguous language at any cost; if the Declaration did not state that it could not be used for justifying unilateral trade measures against developing countries, he would have to vote against it.

325. In order to address constructively concerns raised by several members of the Committee, the Chair requested the Legal Adviser to provide some additional explanations regarding the legal status of the Declaration and its follow-up as well as on the interpretation to be given to Point 3 as revised and adopted. In reply the Legal Adviser provided the following clarifications:(2) 

Point 4

326. Turning to Point 4 while a new text of Point 6 was being prepared, the Chairperson noted that 15 amendments had been submitted to Point 4 and its sub-points. He called attention to the text devised by various groups together following the deadline for amendments, entitled "Point 4. Proposed Compromise Text", and intended to replace the Office text and all the proposed amendments.

* * *

327. The Worker members noted that the new text of Points 4 (introduction) 4.1, 4.2 and 4.2(bis) would effectively replace 4.3 by incorporating some of the ingredients of the original 4.3 into earlier sub-points. They strongly supported the original Point 4.3 because of the many multilateral bodies, including Bretton Woods institutions, which could assist the cause of the Declaration. The Government member of Egypt supported the compromise text with the retention of the bracketed words in the introduction "including mobilization of external resources and support", explaining that his support derived from the idea of mobilizing the necessary resources found in the Copenhagen Declaration and Plan of Action. He opposed the text of Point 4.3, noting his full satisfaction with the supplemental words in the introduction.

328. In explanation of the compromise text, as a member of the informal group who put it together, the Government member of Australia stated that they had tried to put together all the views reflected in the great number of amendments submitted to the point. He explained that he, as well as others on the team, considered that the purpose of Point 4 was to balance the preceding paragraphs which would place certain obligations on Members, since Point 4 would call on the Organization to make resources available. The bracketed words in the introduction were a frank and open attempt to replace Point 4.3, and he believed that the mobilization of external resources and support were closely aligned to the words in Point 4.3. The Worker members, quoting the Copenhagen Declaration, recalled that the language referred to by the Egyptian statement included the following: "At the international level, we will: ... strive to ensure that international organizations, in particular the international financial institutions, support these objectives, integrating them into their policy programmes and operations as appropriate ..." (Copenhagen Declaration, Commitment 6). The Worker members explained that they wished to use the Declaration to seek the assistance of the Bretton Woods institutions, including the International Monetary Fund, by showing that the ILO as the lead agency on labour standards had included those institutions in the document. The Government member of Namibia, speaking on behalf of Algeria, Botswana, Côte d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mauritius, Namibia, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe supported the compromise text as it stood, with the incorporation of the language between the brackets, and was in full agreement with the other paragraphs in Points 4.1, 4.2 and 4.2(bis). However, he proposed that the original text of Point 4.3 should be deleted since the organizations contemplated were already contemplated in article 12 of the Constitution.

329. The Government member of Mexico thanked the informal group which had drafted the compromise text and, recalling the amendments it had submitted together with Bolivia to Points 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 in order to strengthen the sense of cooperation based on the idea of assistance, suggested a subamendment to the proposed compromise text, which would add three words in two places: the words "upon their request" in the introduction of Point 4 after the word "Members" and before the word "attain", and the same three words in the first line of Point 4.2 after "assisting" and before "those". The Government member of Lebanon agreed with the proposal of the Government member of Mexico regarding the words "upon their request" and asked for the deletion of Point 4.3. The Government member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, supported the introduction of Point 4, incorporating the words in the brackets, supported Points 4.1, 4.2, and 4.2(bis), but wished to see Point 4.3 deleted. At this point, the deliberations on Point 4 were interrupted.

Point 6 (cont.)

330. A new text to Point 6 was tabled by a small working group and read as follows:

On a point of order, the Worker members rejected this text. At best it was insulting. At worst it would wreck the search for consensus. In expressing their anger at the new text, they walked out of the meeting. The Chairperson adjourned the session.

Examination of outstanding items:
Title, Points 1.6, 4 and 6

331. The Chairperson stated that, after careful consideration and in consultation with the Officers and the Office, he felt there was no option but to submit a proposed consensus text, with redrafted language, on the points which remained outstanding: the title, the location of the language dealing with the competence of the ILO, and Points 4 and 6, as well as some other smaller points. He called to the Committee's attention the text which had been agreed thus far by the Committee. The Chairperson's proposals were as follows:

(a) Proposed title: ILO Declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work.

(b) In line with the title, the terms "principles and rights" to be used in Points 1.5 and 2.2.

(c) The language previously adopted on the ILO's competence should be included as the sixth preambular paragraph.

(d) Point 4 to be redrafted as follows:

(e) Point 6 to be drafted as follows:

332. The Chairperson noted that a thorough review of the diverse perspectives and formulations had taken place in the earlier debate. His proposal for Point 6 in particular tried to capture what, in his view, could draw a consensus of the whole Committee, he believed that his proposals relating to the other points also appeared to enjoy a great degree of consensus.

333. Throughout the discussion that followed, most speakers expressed appreciation for the Chairperson's efforts to present consensus language. The Employer members supported the new text as a representative middle ground. They observed that the proposed text of Point 6 was similar to, but not the same as, the relevant text from the Singapore Declaration, and that it appeared to accommodate the concerns of almost everyone in the Committee.

334. The Government member of Mexico, while thanking the Chairperson for attempting to encompass the diversity of opinion, felt there was still room for brining opposing views closer together. His key concern was that adoption of the Declaration's follow-up could be motivated by either the desire to promote principles of labour rights, or by a desire on the part of some to use the document as a pretext or justification for trade or protectionist measures and measures that would call into question the comparative advantage of a country. He believed that the proposed text met his Government's concerns with regard to protectionist measures but the way it was drafted would make it difficult to define those measures and perhaps, in that regard, adoption of the text might actually encourage measures contrary to the purposes of the Declaration. He would have specific amendments to propose.

335. The Government member of Egypt noted that, while his Government had comments on the other three points, his main concern related to Point 6. He observed that, in the title, there was some ambiguity in the words "fundamental rights at work" and preferred "fundamental worker principles and rights". As to Point 4, he would like the addition of the word "necessary" before "external", and the word "financial" before "resources and support". In addition, he suggested a deletion of the entire phrase "as well as by encouraging other international organizations with which the ILO has established relations, pursuant to article 12 of its Constitution". Turning to Point 6, he believed that the issue was wider than the concept of protectionist trade measures, and recalled his earlier arguments, in particular, that the Declaration should not be used as a pretext for any new conditionalities by countries, or regional or international organizations, which could limit the efforts of developing countries toward economic and social development. He was prepared to accept Point 6 if the words "or any other purposes" were added after the term "protectionist trade purposes". He concluded by emphasizing the desire to adopt the document by consensus and not by vote. The Government member of Sudan also expressed concern over Point 6 and supported the proposal that "or any other purpose" as inserted. The Government member of the of the Syrian Arab Republic, noting that his country had ratified six of the seven core Conventions and that the seventh would be ratified shortly, believed that the draft text of Point 6 was satisfactory as far as it went, but should include the amendments proposed by Egypt. He urged those calling for the deletion of Point 6 to respect the will of the other Members of the Organization.

336. The Government member of Namibia, speaking on behalf of Algeria, Botswana, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Senegal, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe, supported the Chairperson's text as an effort to bring diverse views together, observing that it was not possible to accommodate everyone's views fully in the text, and recalling that this group had lost some of their own points. Nonetheless, the group supported the document because they were searching for a text with which they could live despite the fact that it did not meet all their concerns.

337. The Government member of the United Kingdom observed that the text contained nothing that would harm the positions of those within the Committee and nothing to justify opposing the Declaration. Focusing on what obstacles remained to adoption by consensus, he noted requests by certain delegations for iron-clad assurances of further safeguards, but it was not in the purview of the Organization to issue a guarantee in the Declaration that would bind parties outside of the ILO. Whatever was added to or subtracted from the text of Point 6 could not transform it into a legally binding guarantee because the Declaration was not an international treaty. The question was whether the Committee wished to have the Conference adopt a Declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work, and to have ILO promote fundamental labour standards and assist countries in attaining them. If it were not adopted, he believed it would legitimize and stimulate precisely the forms of labour standards-related action in other organizations which many members argued should not be taken, and he believed that such a step was not in the interest of the Organization or of its Members. He observed that the overwhelming majority of delegations subscribed to the promotional nature of the Declaration, and if the ILO were seen by the outside as working toward positive and appropriate forms of action, it would make negative forms of action on labour standards less likely. Noting that 16 Government members from Africa alone could accept the Declaration, though not regarding it as a perfect instrument, his Government could as well.

338. The Government member of Germany viewed the Chairperson's new draft text as the last attempt to adopt the Declaration on the basis of consensus and supported it. Although the proposed text on Point 6 did not correspond to his Government's position at the start of the Committee's work, he was prepared to support the text as it was and believed there was no further room for manoeuvre as demanded by some of the previous speakers. The Government member of Greece believed that the proposed text reflected the key views of the Committee and was satisfactory. He observed that Point 6 had a double purpose: first, introducing guarantees for avoiding outside interference in the efforts of the ILO to implement and promote the objectives of the Declaration; and second, demonstrating the confidence of member States in the ILO to this end. He was satisfied that the original text of Point 4.3 had been incorporated into Point 4, and that new elements had been included that would encourage independence and avoid outside interference in the ILO's task of promoting this important work. He stressed the need for adoption of the Declaration by consensus. The Government member of Canada believed that the Chairperson's proposal represented a balanced perspective of most of the Committee members, and he supported the new text of Point 6. The Declaration should not be used as a justification for protectionism nor call into question the comparative advantage of any other country. He supported the Chairperson's text without reservation.

339. The Government member of the United States observed that the debate had dealt more with trade policy than with the essential purpose of the Organization, or of the Declaration and its follow-up. While maintaining his Government's view that Point 6 was unnecessary and in some sense inappropriate to the Declaration, he was willing to consider language that could be accepted as a statement of fact and logic. There was not enough focus on measures that might be used to support the Declaration, and too much focus on suspicions and fears of trade measures; he could not agree to subscribe to discussions that belonged elsewhere or to rewrite international trade policy. Referring to the fundamental freedom of speech, he felt it inappropriate to seek to tell people how to use or not to use the Declaration. He also objected to the proposed addition of the concept "any measure", since such language could include, for example, even UNICEF's work to combat child labour, as well as measures outside governmental action altogether.

340. The Government member of Argentina, while noting that the proposed text did not correspond to his Government's views, supported the compromise solution. He associated his Government with the position of the African Governments' group, and believed, with them, that any attempt to revise the Chairperson's proposed text would mire the Committee into an unpredictable process. As to the modifications proposed by some Members to the new text of Point 6, he could not agree to adding "any other purposes" to Point 6, as he believed that such an addition would be tantamount to asserting that the Declaration could serve no purpose at all, in which case it would be better not to have the Declaration at all. He supported the proposed text of Point 4, noting that the this corresponded to the efforts of the United Nations system to mainstream fundamental rights, and ensure that they would be taken into account in a coherent way together with other organizations with which ILO was already collaborating; the wording needed to be maintained, particularly in light of the resolution on the right of development adopted in the recent session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

341. The Government member of Norway, speaking also on behalf of Denmark, associated himself with the statement of the United Kingdom and supported the Chairperson's text as it was, though he regretted that Point 6 was in the operative part rather than in the Preamble. The Government member of Finland accepted the proposed text of Point 6, noting that it was not in every detail what his Government would have hoped for, but under the circumstances was the best possible result. The Government member of Switzerland agreed with the proposed text of the Declaration and its follow-up. He saw the proposed Point 6 as a clear verdict against protectionism and measures that could compromise comparative advantage, and sufficiently similar to the Singapore language to be acceptable. The Government member of Sweden liked some of the things in the proposed text and not others, but expressed his Government's acceptance of the text as a package. He found incomprehensible the proposed amendment to add "or any other purposes" in Point 6 since it would not allow the text to be used for any purpose. He observed that the text was consistent with Part IV of the Declaration of Philadelphia in its reference to cooperating with other intergovernmental organizations, but he preferred to see Point 6 put into the Preamble rather than as the last paragraph of the Declaration.

342. The Government member of the Netherlands found the text acceptable as a package. The Government member of Italy observed that the proposed text covered all the relevant points and supported it as the basis for achieving consensus. He would have preferred to place Point 6 in the Preamble but believed that the parameters established in the text were those necessary for the promotion of fundamental rights and that the Committee should not go further into the matter of trade. The world was expecting to see the Declaration adopted, and the Committee should meet those expectations. The Government member of Portugal accepted the proposed text, its follow-up, and its title, which he saw as covering principles relating to freedom of association of employers which, in his view, had not been well covered in the original version. The Government member of Poland supported the proposed text as a compromise solution, as did the Government member of Turkey.

343. The Government member of Japan, on behalf of the Asia and Pacific group, believed that the group's concerns were not fully reflected in the proposed new text of Points 4 and 6. The group proposed a subamendment to Point 4 to delete the phrase "as well as ... . efforts" and to replace in Point 6 the words "such purposes" with "the adoption of restrictive trade measures". The Chairperson noted that while considering the subamendment proposed as helpful in understanding the position of the Asia and Pacific group, he did not wish to open the discussion for formal subamendments and requested that changes to the text be negotiated by consensus in advance. The Government member of Pakistan expressed concern that the Committee was being asked to accept the proposed text without amendments. If the Committee were to achieve consensus, he believed that the result must reflect the views of all, and be accepted by all. He believed that the concerns expressed by the Government member of Japan were genuine and represented the minimum necessary to achieve consensus, and that the integrity of the exercise would require proceeding on the basis of an equitable representation of all views. In particular, he requested deletion of the unacceptable provisions of Point 4 and reiterated his appeal to refrain from adopting a practice that would divide the Committee rather than achieve consensus.

344. The Employer members noted that the overwhelming majority of speakers had agreed to accept the proposed text, even when it did not fully meet their views.

345. On a point of order, the Government member of Japan objected to the procedure suggested by the Chairperson not to make amendments to any part of the Chairpersons's proposal, recalling the Asia and Pacific group's efforts to keep their proposed amendments to a minimum. He requested that the Committee discuss the concrete amendment and stressed that the Chairperson's remarks were inappropriate. The Chairperson reiterated that he had stated at the beginning of this consideration that his text sought a consensus, even though it was not possible to incorporate all the positions expressed in the room. However, he was open to any language that could be forged by consensus among all in the Committee by those proposing new ideas. The Government member of Pakistan noted that the proposed text had not met with consensus but found, after deliberations, that a minimum number of changes would be required for consensus and that voting should be avoided.

346. The Government member of Cuba believed that the phrase at the end of Point 4 and the proposed text of Point 6 did not reflect the concerns of numerous delegations. She said that it was necessary to replace the word "should" with "shall" and considered that the term "protectionist trade purposes" did not constitute a sufficient guaranee, despite the expressions of good intentions by some governments. Whatever version resulted would need to make clear that the Declaration should not be used for the adoption of protectionist trade measures or other measures which could call into question the comparative advantage of any country. She would support any wording that would clarify those issues. The Government member of Venezuela, associating himself with the concerns expressed by a number of delegations, and in particular Mexico, recalled the terms used by the President of his country in the plenary of the Conference supporting the Declaration, stressing that the document should not be invoked by any protectionist trade movement wishing to exploit the difficulties facing some countries in order to undermine fair competition in world markets. He underscored his concern with the wording of Points 4 and 6, and expressed particular concern that the last phrase of the introduction of Point 4 was susceptible of possible misuse. Point 6, on which consensus was still possible in his view, would be facilitated by language indicating that the Declaration could not be used to justify protectionist measures or any other measures of any type.

347. The Government member of Australia, noting that very few compromise documents could be described as perfect, encouraged countries to put their concerns on the record and to seek clarification and stated that, at the end of the day, his Government, like others, would be prepared to accept the text as proposed by the Chairperson. The Government member of Hungary, as coordinator of the Central and Eastern part of Europe, noted that the credibility of the ILO and its Members was at stake. Recalling that his Government was also sensitive to discrimination in trade and economic affairs, he recalled that the debates had arrived at a high point when the Worker and Employer members had proposed a text based on the Singapore language which defined for him what was politically possible. He stressed that the ILO could not interfere with the internationally accepted mandates of other international organizations, and believed that the proposed text was a last-ditch effort with an overwhelming majority. He emphasized that Point 6 as proposed was based on the Singapore language.

348. The Government member of Chile noted that certain aspects of the proposal satisfied her delegation more than others. She agreed that improving the text at the moment would be impossible and believed the text was acceptable as it was. She believed that the Declaration would be born in the light of consensus, as the costs of not reaching that consensus would be higher than some might anticipate. The Government member of Bolivia welcomed progress made by the proposed text toward consensus, which he found to be close and to depend on a few changes following the line of those who had spoken earlier. The Government member of Panama supported the content of the text document proposed by the Chairperson but commented on an incorrect translation in the Spanish version.

349. The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran reminded the Committee that the statement by the Asia and Pacific group made it clear that the text did not yet reflect a consensus, and that the group's statement was a sincere attempt to keep the changes to the minimum necessary for them to live with the text. He recalled that the group had made several proposals for the wording of Point 6 in order to find a wording which would be more acceptable to all delegates and hoped that the social partners and other groups would consider this last attempt by his group.

350. The Government member of India stressed that the ILO dealt with three major activities: standard setting, analysis and studies of labour trends, and provision of technical cooperation and assistance. As reference had been made to the credibility of the Organization, he believed that this would be upheld only when the ILO was seen to fulfil its obligations in all three areas and to deal with labour standards in their own right, not in response to extraneous considerations. There was thus far more to the Organization than just the Declaration, the purpose of which was to strengthen the role of the ILO and the commitment of its Members with regard to the principles of the Organization and fundamental rights. He believed that the Organization would also be judged by whether or not it stood firmly against protectionist measures that prevented workers in developing countries from achieving higher standards of living and social progress. The vast majority of developing democracies were committed to progressive implementation of labour standards and whenever they unjustly became the target of protectionist measures, the ILO must stand by them and reject such moves. His delegation's support for strong language for Point 6 was based on these concerns. The Asia and Pacific group, which continued to insist on consensus, had concerns on Points 4 and 6 which could be resolved to achieve consensus. The Government member of Lebanon asserted that her delegation was not prepared to agree to Points 4 and 6 as presently drafted, because Point 6 did not meet her concern as to trade measures, and Points 4 and 6 could be interlinked and she would like to see a consensus on these two points. She supported the proposals made by the Government member of Egypt and the Asia and Pacific group.

351. The Government member of Ireland recalled her delegation's statement in the plenary in support of the Declaration. She believed that the Chairperson's proposed text contained enough substance to be meaningful and threatened no one, and supported his proposals as to procedure as well. She further stressed that further negotiation would not move things forward, and urged the Committee to adopt the document by consensus. The Government member of France noted that, for the past few days, the discussion had dealt with the social dimensions of globalization, a task which fell squarely within the purview of the ILO and was both urgent and topical. He believed that if no adequate response were found in this Conference, two consequences would ensue: a significant loss of credibility for the Organization and the seeking of a response elsewhere, in other institutions with other approaches and other criteria. He noted that the text was acceptable although not perfect. In particular, the text of Point 6, called by some a "safeguard clause" or even an instruction manual, hardly had a place in a solemn Declaration, and its placement in the body of the text was inappropriate since the content of the clause went beyond the competence of the ILO and most of the members of the Committee. Recalling the negotiations and considerable efforts that went into paragraph 4 of the Singapore Declaration, he observed that, since Point 6 flowed from that paragraph, he wished to stay with the text prepared by the trade experts. He was struck by the statement of the Government member of Namibia as the sign of great efforts being made by countries which were not among the richest of the members of the Committee. He would not like to reopen the debate on a compromise text, and found that the emphasis on aid and assistance brought equilibrium to the text. The Government member of New Zealand stated that to achieve an ideal result he would have sought different language in Point 6 but, in assessing the draft text against the Singapore language and the ample opportunities in the Committee to express all views, his delegation was willing to cooperate fully on the proposed text.

352. The Government member of Pakistan, recalling his concern with the procedure adopted, believed that this method would not lead to a consensus. He further noted that his delegation had participated in the efforts toward a Declaration, despite past and present concerns that it was inspired by, and would lead to, an intensification of protectionist measures, and would encourage the building of new forms of protectionism as globalization continued through trade liberalization. The comparative advantage of developing countries, in his view, would be questioned on the basis of the Declaration. The reassurances his delegation had sought were that the ILO was the only organization to deal with labour standards, and that the WTO would not intervene in this respect. While his delegation had now joined with the consensus on Point 1.5 (which became 1.6), he believed this would be completely negated by the last phrase in the proposed text on Point 4, which would open the door for other organizations such as the WTO to intervene on the issue of labour standards. Therefore, he was obliged to oppose the provision here and in any subsequent discussion. He regretted that the proposal had come forward at this late stage, and that there had been no reassurance that restrictive measures -- in the form of certain generalized systems of preferences, consumer boycotts, social labelling, and the withdrawal of financial loans -- were not being expressly disallowed by the Declaration. He saw Point 6 as limited to a narrowly defined concept of trade measures, while it should also address other types of measures such as financial measures.

353. The Government member of Colombia believed that the second part of Point 4 was not necessary because article 12 of the ILO Constitution already gave this mandate to the Organization. This was a mandate the ILO should implement with all its means of action, for all the rights it promoted and not only the fundamental ones. Maintaining the second part of Point 4 could indicate that the article 12 mandate was applied preferentially for fundamental rights, but this was improper because its application to other ILO activities was equally important. As to Point 6, he agreed with the modification requested by the Government members of Mexico, Bolivia and the Asia and Pacific group. The Committee was divided into two groups: one which believed the Declaration should not provide a basis for the adoption of protectionist trade measures, or any other restrictive measures, calling into question the comparative advantage of countries, and the other which seemed to be wishing to use the Declaration and the follow-up to that effect. It was not a coincidence that most of the developing countries were in the first group; and in the second were developed countries which said they were not interested in using the Declaration and the follow-up for such measures. If there was consensus it would not be difficult to include this point. Colombia wanted a Declaration and a follow-up, but not a basis for protectionist and other measures to be applied in the future at the bilateral or multilateral level. The Government member of Egypt noted that the Declaration should not be used to increase the marginalization and hamper the development efforts of developing countries, nor to hinder making available the financial resources needed to achieve economic development. Recalling their earlier efforts at compromise, they stated that the credibility of a draft not adopted by consensus would be in doubt and recalled their earlier proposals on Point 4 referring to the necessity of mobilizing external resources in the language of the Copenhagen Social Summit Declaration, and their proposal to delete the reference to article 12 of the Constitution because the Constitution as a whole should govern the working of the Declaration. He recalled the circumstances of several countries' insistence which had led to the hurried adoption of paragraph 4 of the Singapore Declaration, observing that trade ministers were not concerned with social development as such. He reiterated his Government's opposition to Point 6 unless the phrase were amended to read as follows: "shall not be used for protectionist trade purposes or any other restrictive purposes".

354. The Government member of Brazil accepted the proposed title and wondered whether the word "financial" was missing from the draft text since financial support was integral to the exercise of freedom of association and collective bargaining as well as the elimination of child labour and discrimination. As to Point 6, he proposed replacement of the word "should" with the word "shall", explaining that the "should" was new to that draft text and did not appear in the original Office text nor any amendments or proposed options. His delegation wanted the Declaration to be adopted by consensus. The Government member of China was prepared to accept the text, as proposed by the Chairperson, subject to the changes proposed by the Asia and Pacific group, which represented 37 countries.

355. The Government member of the United States recalled his earlier statement of regret that more time was being spent on trade policy than on labour standards, and denied that anyone's intentions were protectionist. He said it sounded as if some Members wanted to lock the Declaration and its follow-up in a box, lest someone even refer to it in the future; he found this regrettable. He reiterated his statement that open trade policy was a completely complementary objective to improving labour standards, and that his Government was prepared to discuss trade policy questions in the forum on trade policy, the WTO. He proposed that the text should ask every Member to take all possible measures to enforce its implementation, rather than the negative approach taken by some Members in the Committee. The ILO was not in the position to rewrite the rules and objectives of every other organization which, in his opinion, had complementary objectives to those addressed in the Declaration. He saw no basis for the approach that labour standards posed a threat to trade, social justice and employment, and noted that consumer boycotts and social labelling were not organized by governments. He wished the focus of discussion had been on what to do together to improve social and labour standards in the world, rather than what not to do.

356. The Government member of Mexico noted that the fundamental concern should be protecting and promoting labour standards, and agreed with the Government member of the Untied States that no country would admit that it had protectionist intentions. In fact, he could live with Point 6 if the word "protectionist" were removed, since "trade measures" were often much wider than mere protectionism, and were of general concern to developing countries. He noted a problem with the Spanish version of Point 6, stating "sobre la base de" (on the basis of) differed from the English version which said "by". He observed that the proposed text was called a compromise text since it satisfied the IMEC group and that, in his view, there was no balance in the text put forward. In particular, he stated that text required member States to work toward the realization of Conventions they had not yet ratified, and that it adopted a follow-up which would evaluate States' compliance with the content of Conventions which had not been ratified. On the other hand, when some requested a safeguard clause, the response to this was not sufficiently effective. He believed that Points 4 and 6 were not acceptable as a consensus text. He recalled that he had not withdrawn the amendments submitted earlier to the original text and, if the Chairperson's proposed text were not amended, then his text should be considered an amendment itself and all amendments should be subjected to a vote.

357. The Government member of the Philippines stated that he was not prepared to leave without a Declaration because the issues raised in the Committee would be addressed by other forums instead. Noting that the Philippines shared the concerns raised by ASEAN and the Asia and Pacific group, he noted that removal of the word "protectionist" in Point 6 would address the concern over linkage between the application of labour standards and trade and it would be difficult to prove whether something were "protectionist" or not. Point 4 was also difficult to accept as drafted. He feared that the last phrase of the introduction of Point 4, beginning "as well as", would permit conditions on loans from international financial institutions that would be used to tie down some countries and force them to accept limitations on their sovereignty. The Chairperson noted that the phrase in Point 4 said nothing more than that the ILO should abide by its Constitution and then referred to other international organizations with which the ILO has established relations. With regard to the scope of the reference to article 12 of the Constitution in Point 4 of the Declaration, the Legal Adviser specified that the international organizations with whom the ILO had concluded agreements under this provision of the Constitution included all members of the United Nations family, and the International Atomic Energy Agency. No formal agreement had been concluded between the ILO and the Bretton Woods institutions and the World Trade Organization.

358. The Government member of Algeria appealed that the spirit of measured moderation continued to prevail: this Declaration had to be the fruit of consensus. In this regard he suggested adding the words "or any other obstructing purposes", after the words "protectionist trade purposes". The Government member of the Republic of Korea, noting that the Committee's work was one of the most difficult the Conference had ever experienced, believed that the fullest consensus could be achieved by accepting the amendment of the Egyptian delegation or that of the Asia and Pacific group. The Government member of the United Arab Emirates, recalling the Chairperson's decision not to resort to voting and the preference for consensus, believed that the door should be left open to consider the amendments, and saw three alternatives: to accept the Chairperson's text; to accept it with additional amendments; or to accept nothing. Noting that some in the Committee had accepted it fully, and that others accepted it with certain comments, he associated himself with the statement of the Asia and Pacific group, as well as those of the delegations of Egypt and Mexico. The Government member of Indonesia, on behalf of the ASEAN group, associated herself with the statements supporting the consensus method and viewing the proposed text as still under negotiation. Her group insisted on minimum changes being made to the text on Points 4 and 6, as requested by the Asia and Pacific coordinator. Taking note of the observation regarding the interpretation of Point 4 and the statement on the intergovernmental organizations with which the ILO had concluded agreements, she recalled that, in the recent ILO Tripartite Meeting on the financial crisis in Asia, the ILO had invited the International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank, and the World Bank.

359. The Government member of South Africa, agreeing with the statement of the Government member of Namibia on behalf of the group of African governments mentioned, said his delegation continued to believe in the importance and significance of the Declaration, and had participated since last year in the efforts toward its development, guided by their own experience and struggle against apartheid, repression of workers and social deprivation. Coming from one of the poorest continents in the world, he believed that his group suffered the most in the globalizing world and yet supported the proposed text as the most coherent foundation for the efforts sought. His group sought to enhance the spirit of global partnership and cooperation between the North and South but emphasized a shared vision of the countries in the South themselves. The Declaration was an idea whose time had come and even if its adoption were deferred until a later time, it was not something that would go away. They hoped consensus could still be achieved but, if the consensus sought amounted to a weakening of the Declaration, this would be difficult to accept.

360. The Worker members noted their desire to retain the original Point 4.3 but accepted the proposed revision of Point 4. As to Point 6, they shared the views of the Government of the United States that there was no place in the Declaration for a clause about trade and other issues outside ILO competence. If there was to be such a clause, they insisted that it remain within Singapore language. They observed that the discussion could lead to the conclusion that "safeguards" clause could be considered more of a "safeguards from labour standards" clause. They agreed with the Government members of Sweden and the United States that the right place for that concept was in the Preamble. They found that the statement of the Government member of Pakistan against consumer boycotts and social labelling certainly went beyond the realistic policy of any government, and would be at odds with the Declaration. The Worker members did not like the phrase "shall be invoked or otherwise used for such purposes" and the Asia and Pacific group's use of the term "other measures" would go beyond the scope of the ILO. In their view, the abuse of labour rights by the use of forced labour in some areas of the world and the use of child labour as it existed in both developed and developing countries, as well as the question of discrimination, and of persecution of trade unionists by removal of the right to collective bargaining, were all protectionist measures in themselves. Recognizing that the request for moving this Point was unlikely to be accepted, the Worker members were prepared to waive their original amendment text if others did the same with their amendments.

361. Having listened carefully to the discussion on the text he had proposed for consensus, the Chairperson concluded that his proposed text was not a basis for consensus. It was decided to use that text, and the amendments suggested thereto, as a basis for further work for taking decisions on four points: (i) the title with one amendment proposed by Egypt; (ii) Point 1.6 on the proposed draft for which language had been agreed earlier and only the decision as to placement remained pending; (iii) Point 4 for which amendments by Egypt and the Asia and Pacific group had been submitted to delete the phrase "as well as by encouraging other international organizations with which the ILO has established relations, pursuant to article 12 of its Constitution", and a second amendment proposed by Egypt to replace the phrase "including by the mobilization of external resources and support" with "including by the mobilization of the necessary external financial resources and support", and (iv) Point 6, with suggestions for amendments by Egypt and the Asia and Pacific group.

362. Turning first to the title of the Declaration, the Committee voted on the amendment submitted by the Government member of Egypt to delete the words "at work" and insert the word "labour" before the word "rights", so that the title would read "ILO Declaration on fundamental principles and labour rights". In response to the request of the Government member of France concerning the proposed French version of the title, the Legal Adviser clarified that, with the amendment, the proposed title would be: "Declaration de OIT relative aux principes et droits fondamentaux du travail" instead of "Declaration de OIT relative aux principes et droits fondamentaux au travail". The result of the voting was as follows: votes for, 3,243; votes against, 315; abstentions 20,592. Since the number of total votes was less than the quorum, which was 13,104, the amendment was not carried and the original proposal for the title was adopted.

363. Turning to the second issue, the Chairperson noted that, since the text had been already agreed upon and no proposals to change the placement had been made, it was adopted as Point 1.6 of the preambular part of the Declaration.

364. Turning to Point 4, the Committee voted on the amendment submitted by the Asia and Pacific group which proposed to delete from "as well as ..." to the end. The results of the voting were as follows: in favour, 3,360; against 0; abstentions, 26,355. Since the quorum was not met, the amendment was not carried.

365. A vote was then held on the second amendment to Point 4 submitted by the Government of Egypt, which proposed to replace the term "external resources" with "necessary external financial resources". The results of the voting were as follows: in favour 3,465; against 0; abstentions, 26,355. Given that the number of total votes cast was less than the quorum, the amendment was not carried.

366. The Government member of Mexico noted that he would withdraw the first part of the amendment submitted by his Government on Point 6 and instead accept the amendment submitted by the Government member of Brazil to replace "should" by "shall" since it would have the same effect as his Government's proposal. The Chairperson accepted the proposal to vote first on the Brazilian amendment and the Legal Adviser, corrected the French version of the proposed amendment to say "remplacer 'pourront' par 'doivent'". The Government member of Brazil stated that for translation purposes to his language, he would have to follow the French version. A vote was then held on the amendment by the Government member of Brazil, as amended in the French version. The results of the voting were as follows: in favour, 5,241; against, 0; abstentions, 24,684. Since the quorum was not met, the amendment was not carried.

367. The vote was next held on the amendment submitted by the Government member of Mexico to delete the word "protectionist" in Point 6. The results of the voting were as follows: in favour, 2,625; against, 0; abstentions, 26,775. Since the quorum was not met, the amendment was not carried.

368. The amendment submitted by the Government member of Egypt to add the words "or any other restrictive purposes" after the words "protectionist trade purposes" in Point 6, was put to the vote. The results of the voting were as follows: in favour 3,255; against 0; abstentions 24,795. Given that the quorum was not met, the amendment was not carried.

369. A vote was then held on the amendment submitted by the Asia and Pacific group to replace "such purposes" in Point 6 with "the adoption of restrictive trade measures". The results of the voting were as follows: in favour 5,232; against 0; abstentions 24,378. Since the quorum was not met, the amendment was not carried. The Government member of Mexico withdrew the amendment submitted on Point 6 to replace "by" with "on the basis of", explaining that this affected only the English and French versions, a matter with which the Drafting Committee could deal.

370. The entire text of the Declaration was then submitted for approval, by vote. The results of the voting were as follows: in favour, 26,880; against, 315; abstentions, 2,520. The text of the Declaration was approved.

371. Following the vote on the Declaration, the Government member of China requested that the clarifications by the Legal Adviser be annexed to the report including her questions concerning whether the annual report was a new system under article 19 of the Constitution and whether the global report was double scrutiny under article 22 of the Constitution, since the response of the Legal Adviser had served as the basis for her Government's acceptance of the follow-up.

372. The Government member of Egypt noted that it had endeavoured to present amendments to the draft Declaration with a view to adoption of a clear and unambiguous text and title, and in particular Points 4 and 6. As to Point 4, he explained that his objective was to bring the wording into conformity with the Copenhagen Social Summit Declaration and to take into account the financial resources required to meet Members' objectives, and to rule out any conditionality in respect of the application of international labour standards. As for Point 6, he wished to avoid any application of the Declaration which would act as an obstacle to economic and social development . He added that, had the voting taken place in another more democratic organization, the voting pattern would have come out differently

373. The Government member of Australia, speaking on behalf of his Government and that of New Zealand, noted his support for adoption of the Declaration. During the procedure, he had insisted on achievement of the Declaration by consensus and that was why he had abstained on all votes.

374. The Government member of Japan, speaking for his own Government, regretted that the Declaration had been put to a vote despite his repeated position in favour of adoption by consensus. By adopting the Declaration by vote, its effectiveness was greatly watered down. He believed that efforts for adoption of the Declaration by consensus in the plenary should be continued.

375. The Government member of Brazil regretted that the Declaration had been adopted by vote, as it had been to achieve consensus that he had compromised during negotiations. He had voted in favour of the Declaration because it was essential to separate labour standards and trade matters.

376. The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran explained that he had voted in favour of the Declaration based on three understandings: that the Declaration did not create any new legal obligations which would otherwise require approval of the Government and the Parliament; that the follow-up involved no double scrutiny; and that the inclusion of Point 6 was a rejection of unilateral trade measures which were against the principles and rules of international law; the Declaration and its follow-up did not justify or allow adoption of such measures.

377. The Government member of India explained his vote in favour of the Declaration. He pointed to his country's consistent stand in favour of a promotional Declaration, based on its content and purpose. He had a number of concerns, all of which had not been met, even though some issues of importance had been addressed and others clarified through the Legal Adviser's formal opinion. Nevertheless, India had gone along, given its support for the principles of the ILO and commitment to labour standards. He regretted the fact that consensus had not been reached and that the text of the Declaration had not accommodated the views of all parties within the Committee, which could have been the case, thereby greatly strengthening support for the Declaration and facilitating its effective follow-up. He noted that, while the Declaration was no doubt important, it concerned only a part of the work of the ILO. He stressed that the best way to promote and strengthen labour standards was to achieve universal ratification of Conventions and to strengthen the capacity of governments to implement them, thereby improving standards of living, social justice and social progress, particularly in developing countries. The ILO must deal with labour standards as benchmarks in the processes of social and economic development of societies. He believed that it was equally important for the Office to also implement all aspects of its basic mandate, in particular analysis and studies of labour trends worldwide as well as technical cooperation activities, apart from its work related to standard setting or follow-up to the Declaration. He observed that the Office must take into account the various concerns that had been raised during the deliberations of the Committee and in particular pay due heed to the content of Point 6. The manner of implementation of Point 6 by the Office was of central importance to the relevance of the ILO. His delegation did not believe that there could be any justification for targeting developing countries, which were doing everything possible to progressively implement labour standards as part of their efforts to improve living standards and labour welfare in their societies, by imposing unilateral or collective trade measures. To do so would be to place sanctions on poverty. Should this happen, his delegation would fully expect the Office to come to the assistance of countries concerned and to declare such actions unjustified. He expressed the confidence that this would indeed be the orientation of the Office towards the import of Point 6.

378. The Government member of the United States welcomed the adoption of the Declaration as an historic step forward and recalled that this Government did not view the Declaration as affecting legal obligations undertaken in other bodies, including those in relation to international trade. He said the rules of the WTO were based upon legal rights and obligations. Nothing in the WTO rules impinged on the ability of the United States to condition the extension of trade benefits on labour standards, or other related United States statutes. Nor could anything in the Declaration or follow-up in the ILO have any effect on this fact and there could be no obligations of any kind created in this regard from Point 6. He also said that the promotion of labour standards and social justice must be moved forward consistently and in complementarity with an increase in global trade. In his view, consistent efforts to improve labour conditions would strengthen the international trade system.

379. The Worker members noted that the unanimous vote of the Workers' group in favour of the Declaration did not mitigate their grave concern about Point 6 which, as noted in Report VII (page 20 of the English text), was quite redundant from a legal point of view. Recalling the position taken in the report, the Workers believed the Declaration was not intended to impose new obligations on member States, that the Organization was not competent in the field of trade, and that the ILO had no authority to issue instructions on a matter that does not fall within its competence. They viewed the language in Point 6 as symbolic in nature and entirely inappropriate. They also questioned the wisdom of such gratuitous references to trade since, as Report VII noted, attempts to establish binding links between protection of workers and international trade, while commonplace, were not appropriate. They warned that Point 6 would only raise more questions about those attempts. In their view, if protectionism were the issue, then countries who sought a comparative advantage by not giving workers the rights under the Declaration, were themselves applying a form of protectionism.

380. The Government member of Sweden deeply regretted the Committee's inability to proceed by consensus, and strongly objected to the inference by one delegation that the procedures had not been democratic. The Government member of Venezuela, which had supported the Declaration from the outset, regretted having had to take the decision by a vote and the failure of the proposed amendments which, in his view, were designed to improve the text by giving greater safeguards to developing countries.

381. The Employer members noted that the important step taken by the adoption should be viewed in relation to the role that the ILO had to play in the global economy. They believed the Declaration constituted a sound basis for that role. They viewed the Committee as having met that challenge and looked to the next step which, in their view, was to come up with a credible and meaningful mechanism that would be implemented by the Governing Body.

382. In concluding the discussion, the Government member of the United Kingdom, noting that the Committee had come "within a whisker of a consensus", thought perhaps it was still possible to achieve that consensus in the plenary, and paid tribute to the Chairperson's fairness, skill, patience, stamina, and good humour.

Adoption of the report

383. At its 21st sitting the Committee adopted its report by consensus, subject to certain modifications.

Geneva, 17 June 1998.

(Signed) Mark MOHER,
Chairperson/Reporter.

1.  The following adjustments were made:

2.  At the request of the Committee, these clarifications are available in the form of a separate document.

3.   In Spanish, the definition of the term "compromiso" (commitment) is "obligación" (obligation).


Updated by VC. Approved by RH. Last update: 26 January 2000.

For further information, please contact the Official Relations Branch at Tel: +41.22.799.7732, Fax: +41.22.799.8944 or by e-mail: RELOFF@ilo.org

International Labour Conference: [ Home ]

© 1996-2022 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Copyright and Permissions | Privacy policy | Disclaimer