The Maritime Labour Convention around the world The Maritime Labour Convention around the world 
Image credit: © ILO
The implementation and enforcement of ILO Conventions, including the MLC, is subject to the unique, robust and expert supervisory system of the ILO which oversees compliance with Conventions ratified by Members. The system is well documented. It relies heavily on the work of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) and, in the context of the MLC, the complementary role of the Special Tripartite Committee. The MLC is also considered by the Committee on the Application of Standards, the International Labour Conference and the Governing Body of the ILO.
An essential part of the ILO supervisory system concerns the reports that are required by virtue of article 22 of the Constitution of the ILO. Pursuant to article 22, States agree:
“to make an annual report to the International Labour Office on the measures… taken to give effect to the provisions of [the] Convention…”.
In 2014, the CEACR noted in relation to the MLC:
“a significant level of implementation in practice, well beyond the adoption of legislation in many cases, and a high level of engagement by relevant actors in the industry”.
Image credit: © ILO
It also noted that:
“observations were received from a number of workers’ (seafarers’) organizations, the majority of which indicated that there has been a good, even high, level of consultation and social dialogue in the process of national implementation”.
In 2018, the CEACR acknowledged:
“impressive efforts for its implementation in law and practice”.
In a General Observation adopted in 2020, in the context of COVID-19, the CEACR observed that based on the information provided by the ITF and the ICS and the evidence available at the Office:
“…the provisions of the Convention (MLC) continue to be disregarded worldwide”.
Image credit: © ILO
The CEACR has issued around 270 comments (in the form of observations and direct requests) concerning the MLC. Comments, according to the ILO Office:
“…raise a number of issues that still need to be addressed… While in some cases the CEACR draws the governments… attention to gaps regarding specific details of the Convention, in others, it requests the governments concerned to adopt the basic legislation giving effect to most of the provisions of the Convention”.
Article 22 reports are not in the public domain. Direct requests issued by the CEACR arising out of article 22 reports are in the public domain. But the answers of States to direct requests do not appear in the public domain.
Since 2014, the CEACR has included a disclaimer in its reports which affirms that:
“… its opinions and recommendations are non-binding, being intended to guide the actions of national authorities. They derive their persuasive value from the legitimacy and rationality of the Committee’s work based on its impartiality, experience and expertise …”.
“… Unlike many other international labour Conventions, the MLC, 2006, was not accompanied by a non-binding international labour Recommendation, but rather has integrated binding and non-binding norms in a vertical structure of mandatory Articles, Regulations and Standards and non-mandatory Guidelines…
These are the main examples of the principle of “firmness and flexibility” that underlies the MLC, 2006: firmness on rights and principles with considerable flexibility for each ratifying Member to determine the ways in which those rights and principles will be implemented in their details. They present a challenging opportunity for the supervisory system of the International Labour Organisation to adopt a broad teleological approach in determining whether or not a ratifying Member is giving proper effect in law and in practice to the comprehensive requirements of the MLC, 2006 …”.
CEACR, 102nd Session ILC, 2013