Employers' Handbook on ILO Standards-related Activities

APPENDIX 6
so, and ensure that ladders (where these are necessary if work cannot be safely done on or from
the ground, as specified in the Safety and Health in Construction Convention, 1988 (No. 167))
are properly secured against inadvertent movement, etc. Instead of amassing details which are
often of very little practical use, it might be more effective to establish general rules of responsibility,
application of which could be assessed by reference to safety precaution standards, the
state of the art or other practices in a particular trade or occupation. These could appear in codes
of practice which might be referred to in legislation, collective agreements or court decisions.
This very complex question certainly warrants deeper reflection than is possible within the
content and scope of this Report.
Another more traditional approach would be to incorporate these more detailed regulations
in an annex to the instrument which could be revised and updated in accordance with a
different and more simplified procedure than that applying to the Convention itself. In cases in
which regulations are by their very nature relatively transitory (because they might for instance
be linked to a specific level of technology or knowledge), it might be preferable to restrict the
instruments to objectives and leave the actual details of implementation to the annexes to ensure
greater flexibility. As the Director-General already pointed out in his Report in 1964: “certain
Conventions contain provisions of a technical nature, necessary for their proper application,
which do not involve matters of general policy in the same sense as the basic obligations of
the Convention and are more liable than the provisions of a more general nature to call for
periodical amendment to adapt them to changing needs and circumstances. ... The provisions in
question are, however, an integral part of the Convention and, unlike regulations giving effect to
a statute in national law and practice, cannot, as matters now stand, be amended without revision
of the Convention itself.” 23 The Report went on to state that it had not been uncommon for
international conventions to permit the amendment of annexes, schedules and other provisions
of a technical nature by simplified procedures specified by the Conference (in other words not
necessarily involving ratification) “without infringing the principle that the obligations of
States should not be extended without their consent”. 24
3. Should the procedure for selecting standards be less definitive?
My preceding remarks in no way offer a ready-made solution to the problem of choosing
the most appropriate subject for standard setting in every case. They rather suggest that the
inclusion of an item on the agenda with a view to standard setting should be the final outcome
of a process during which any subject which does not seem ripe for standard setting – which
therefore would only make an inconsequential or ephemeral contribution to the body of standards
– should be eliminated. The present procedure for selecting items rarely enters into a
discussion in the Governing Body of the possible content of the instrument. The result often
reflects an overall compromise which also deals with agenda items for a general discussion.
Indeed, subjects for standards are often chosen on the basis of the lowest common denominator
– in other words, because there is nothing better on offer.
To encourage a more rational selection procedure, ways should be seriously examined to
separate items included with a view to standard setting from those for a general discussion. In
short, to permit items up for general discussion to be more in touch with topical concerns, it
should be possible to include them in the agenda at a later date than items for standard setting.
Above all, it should be possible, when finally including an item on the agenda, to have a
clearer view of the possible content of the instrument under consideration compared with that
of existing instruments – including those outside the Organization. According to the present
procedure, however, the Governing Body makes its choice on the basis of a comparative analysis
and very general indications as to objectives, without entering into any detail on each subject.
Here again, a “portfolio” could improve the situation by helping, after a number of successive
examinations, to define the outline of the instrument on the subject envisaged.
105