ILO Conventions 111 and 100 in Central America and Mexico: An Assessment of the Jurisprudence of the ILO Committee of Experts

Tequila J. Brooks
{"title":"ILO Conventions 111 and 100 in Central America and Mexico: An Assessment of the Jurisprudence of the ILO Committee of Experts","authors":"Tequila J. Brooks","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3133808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The International Labor Organization (ILO) monitors compliance with Conventions through two mechanisms: the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) and the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR). While there is a significant amount of attention and literature dedicated to the work of the CFA, there is less attention devoted to the work of the CEACR. There is also inadequate attention to the ILO’s promotion and monitoring of ILO Conventions 100 (equal pay for work of equal value for women and men) and 111 (prohibition of discrimination in work and occupation based on sex and other grounds). These Conventions form the third pillar of the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Rights at Work. This paper hopes to rectify this gap in the literature by examining the jurisprudence of the CEACR relating to ILO Conventions 100 and 111 in Mexico,Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. It finds that ILO Committee of Experts comments had an impact on the development and improvement in labor laws in the countries examined but that sole causation could not be ascribed. Legal changes frequently took decades to occur and resulted from a combination of efforts by national and international social movements as well as reports and comments issued by the ILO and other regional and international bodies.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Employment Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3133808","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The International Labor Organization (ILO) monitors compliance with Conventions through two mechanisms: the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) and the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR). While there is a significant amount of attention and literature dedicated to the work of the CFA, there is less attention devoted to the work of the CEACR. There is also inadequate attention to the ILO’s promotion and monitoring of ILO Conventions 100 (equal pay for work of equal value for women and men) and 111 (prohibition of discrimination in work and occupation based on sex and other grounds). These Conventions form the third pillar of the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Rights at Work. This paper hopes to rectify this gap in the literature by examining the jurisprudence of the CEACR relating to ILO Conventions 100 and 111 in Mexico,Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. It finds that ILO Committee of Experts comments had an impact on the development and improvement in labor laws in the countries examined but that sole causation could not be ascribed. Legal changes frequently took decades to occur and resulted from a combination of efforts by national and international social movements as well as reports and comments issued by the ILO and other regional and international bodies.
劳工组织在中美洲和墨西哥的第111号和第100号公约:对劳工组织专家委员会判例的评价
国际劳工组织(劳工组织)通过两个机制监测公约的遵守情况:结社自由委员会(CFA)和公约和建议适用问题专家委员会(CEACR)。虽然有大量的关注和文献致力于CFA的工作,但对CEACR工作的关注较少。对劳工组织促进和监测劳工组织第100号公约(男女同工同酬)和第111号公约(禁止基于性别和其他理由的工作和职业歧视)的工作也注意不足。这些公约构成了1998年《工作中的基本权利宣言》的第三个支柱。本文希望通过审查劳工组织第100号和第111号公约在墨西哥、危地马拉、萨尔瓦多和洪都拉斯的判例来纠正文献中的这一差距。报告认为,劳工组织专家委员会的评论对所审查国家的劳工法的发展和改进产生了影响,但不能归咎于唯一的原因。法律的改变往往需要几十年才能发生,这是国家和国际社会运动的共同努力以及劳工组织和其他区域和国际机构发表的报告和评论的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信