Somalia stakes a moral claim in The Hague over the right to strike
When Somalia’s ambassador stood at the International Court of Justice in The Hague last week, she did more than recite legal positions. Ambassador Khadija Osoble Ali framed a debate about workers’ rights in a country still rebuilding basic institutions after decades of conflict — and, in doing so, offered an argument with implications far beyond Mogadishu.
- Advertisement -
The ICJ held hearings from Oct. 6–8, 2025, on a request for an advisory opinion about whether the right to strike is protected under ILO Convention No. 87. Somalia’s delegation appeared on Oct. 8 and told the world that the right to strike is “an indispensable and inseparable component of freedom of association,” a practical necessity without which union rights are hollow. The message, delivered in diplomatic language, was simple: laws on paper mean little if workers lack the means to defend their interests.
From constitutional promise to courtroom advocacy
Somalia’s intervention was rooted in domestic change. Article 24 of the federal constitution explicitly guarantees the right to strike. Earlier this year the government adopted a revised Labour Code — its first major overhaul in more than 50 years — developed in consultation with the Somali Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Federation of Somali Trade Unions (FESTU), and the International Labour Organization. That legislative renewal gave Somalia standing to speak not only as a member of the international community but as a country that has moved to align national law with international labour standards.
“Without the right to strike, workers’ organisations would be left without the means to defend their members’ interests,” Ambassador Osoble said at the court. FESTU General Secretary Omar Faruk Osman called the government’s stance “a clear demonstration of Somalia’s commitment to justice, fairness and international labour rights,” and hailed the intervention as a contribution to the global labour movement.
Why an advisory opinion at the ICJ matters
Advisory opinions from the ICJ are not legally binding the way judgments in contentious cases are, but they carry moral weight and persuasive authority. A deliberate ruling affirming that Convention No. 87 protects the right to strike would help shape how national courts, labour ministries, and international bodies interpret restrictions on industrial action — from so‑called essential services carve‑outs to growing attempts to curb collective action in the name of economic stability.
For trade unions and labour lawyers, a clear pronouncement from the world’s highest court would be a powerful tool. It would strengthen litigation strategies, bolster collective bargaining, and embed a global standard at a moment when labour movements are grappling with new pressures: automation, precarious gig work, and legal constraints in several countries.
Somalia’s position in a wider global debate
That a nation once synonymous in many people’s minds with instability has stepped into this debate pro‑labor is itself noteworthy. Somalia ratified ILO Convention No. 87 in 2014 and has since worked with the ILO to harmonise domestic laws. The new Labour Code, the first substantive reform in decades, was described to the court as a framework ensuring “that the right to strike is not only recognised in law but also respected and applied in practice.”
There is, of course, a tension at the heart of the issue. Governments and employers often argue that strikes can threaten essential services, national security or fragile economies — an argument that gained traction during the COVID‑19 pandemic and has been invoked in the face of rolling strikes in transport, health and education sectors in various countries. The counterargument, which Somalia put forward at The Hague, is that restrictions must be narrow, proportionate and accompanied by effective safeguards; otherwise the right to strike is rendered meaningless.
What this means for workers and for diplomacy
Somalia’s advocacy also reflects a strategic diplomatic choice. By foregrounding labour rights in a high‑profile international forum, Mogadishu signals its intent to be seen as a constructive partner in multilateral institutions — an image that may help as the country seeks investment and reconstruction support. For Somali trade unions, this is a validation of years of organising and coalition‑building with employers and international partners.
At a human level, the issue resonates with everyday concerns. From the dockworker bargaining for safer conditions to the teacher seeking decent pay, the ability to withhold labour remains one of the most effective levers ordinary people possess. The right to strike is not merely a legal abstraction; it is a practical corrective to power imbalances in workplaces and economies.
Broader trends and unanswered questions
- Global: Labour movements worldwide are navigating a mixed landscape — renewed activism and union drives in some countries, legal rollbacks and anti‑union campaigns in others.
- Legal: An ICJ advisory opinion that firmly links Convention No. 87 to the right to strike could influence national judiciaries and labour codes for years to come.
- Political: Governments balancing economic recovery, investor confidence and social stability must decide whether to restrict strikes and under what conditions.
Somalia’s intervention asks a wider question: in an era of economic precariousness and technological change, who gets to define the limits of protest at work? The ICJ’s eventual opinion will not close the debate, but it could set a normative reference point that labour activists, employers and courts around the world will consult.
As the legal arguments unfold in The Hague, the human stakes remain clear. For workers in countries recovering from conflict, for those in gig economy platforms with few protections, and for unions defending hard‑won rights, the question is not abstract: it is about the capacity to claim dignity, security and a voice in shaping livelihoods.
Will the ICJ affirm that the right to strike is an indivisible part of freedom of association? And if it does, will governments and employers translate that ruling into laws and practices that protect workers in reality, not just on paper? Those are questions that extend beyond the courtroom to the shop floor and the schoolroom, and they deserve public attention.
By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
