Measures to prepare for ratification of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention enacted

Abstract

24 | International Union Rights | 28/3-4 FOCUS | FORCED LABOUR – THE WORLD TODAY AND THE LEGACIES OF COLONIALISM AND SLAVERY Measures to prepare for ratification of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention enacted On 9 June 2021, the National Diet (parliament) of Japan enacted a Bill to prepare legislative measures to pave the way for Japan’s ratification of the International Labour Organisation Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), following approval by a majority vote in the House of Councillors (the Diet’s Upper House). ILO Convention No. 105 is one of the eight core ILO Conventions, and Japan has been criticised internationally for failure to ratify it. Article 1 of the Convention requires every ratifying member State: to suppress and not to make use of any form of forced or compulsory labour— (a) as a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system; (b) as a method of mobilising and using labour for purposes of economic development; (c) as a means of labour discipline; (d) as a punishment for having participated in strikes ILO Convention No. 105 and the Asia-Pacific region Just 11 ILO member States have not ratified ILO Convention No. 105, and they are all in the Asia Pacific region. They are: Brunei Darussalam; China; Japan; Lao; Marshall Islands; Myanmar; Palau; South Korea; Timor-Leste; Tonga; and Tuvalu. Two further States ratified and then denounced the Convention: Malaysia and Singapore, also both ILO member States in the Asia-Pacific region. North Korea is not an ILO member State but is yet another country in the region outside of the Convention. But not all countries in the region have this approach: Australia (1960); New Zealand (1968); Philippines (1960); and Indonesia (1999) have all ratified the Convention. Recently signatories such as the Solomon Islands (2012), Cook Islands (2015), and Vietnam (2020). If they can adopt the instrument then it is certainly time for Japan to embrace the Convention. In 2021 the governments of both Japan and South Korea have been discussing this issue. South Korea took a big step this year with the ratification of Conventions No. 87, 98, and 29 (on freedom of association, collective bargaining and forced labour), but it has so far not approved ratification of Convention No. 105. Reform of hard labour punishment for public sector strikers Japan’s National Public Service Law (Act No. 120 of 1947) and the Local Civil Service Law (Act No. 261 of 1950) were in conflict with Article 1(a) and 1(d) because they restrict political rights and also prohibit central and local public employees from organising and participating in strike action (Article 98 of the National Public Service Law and Article 37 of the Local Civil Service Law). Disciplinary action is always taken against civil servants who engage in industrial action contrary to these provisions, but the conflict with ILO Convention 105 arose not just because of these restrictions but because the laws also established a basis to impose terms of imprisonment for up to 3 years with hard labour for those found guilty of inciting strike action (Article 110, National Public Service Law and Article 62 / 63 Local Civil Service Law). The Bill, enacted as the Law on the Development of Relevant Laws for the Conclusion of the Convention on the Abolition of Forced Labour (No. 105) (Act No. 75 of 2021), changes the penalties applicable in these circumstances. The Act contains provisions to amend the National Civil Service Law, the Local Public Service Law, and the Mail Law, and changes the penalty for public service employees participating in strikes or political activities from one of imprisonment with hard labour to imprisonment without hard labour. This changes the type of punishment for public service employees to remove barriers to Japan’s ratification. But punishment exists per se, and the Bill thus provides no solution to the fundamental problems. The Diet enacted the law so as to pave the way for the ratification of ILO Convention No. 105, and the measure was approved by a majority vote in the House of Councillors. However, while...