Employers' Handbook on ILO Standards-related Activities
Employers' Handbook on ILO Standards-related Activities
Employers' Handbook on ILO Standards-related Activities
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
110<br />
EMPLOYERS’ HANDBOOK ON <strong>ILO</strong> STANDARDS-RELATED ACTIVITIES<br />
time available” and this “inevitably reflected <strong>on</strong> the quality of the instruments adopted”. It<br />
stressed that: “Any difficulties resulting from amendments adopted in the course of a first<br />
discussi<strong>on</strong> can be eliminated but this is not so with amendments adopted in a sec<strong>on</strong>d discussi<strong>on</strong><br />
...”. It went <strong>on</strong> to say that the texts adopted could have differences in meaning between the<br />
languages as a result of pressure <strong>on</strong> the translators and the drafting committee, which was<br />
weighted down by amendments and called up<strong>on</strong> to solve questi<strong>on</strong>s of substance and not merely<br />
of drafting. They performed a major task “sitting <strong>on</strong> average for six or seven hours, at a stage in<br />
the C<strong>on</strong>ference when the strain of two weeks’ meetings is beginning to be felt, but the C<strong>on</strong>ference<br />
timetable does not permit of any delay in the completi<strong>on</strong> of their task”. 40<br />
N<strong>on</strong>e of these statements has unfortunately lost any of its validity over the years. The<br />
drastic cutting down of the C<strong>on</strong>ference schedule has, <strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>trary, <strong>on</strong>ly added to the difficulties,<br />
including the time required by the drafting committees, which should <strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>trary have<br />
more time. The various suggesti<strong>on</strong>s made, of which some seemed at first to be fairly sound,<br />
such as for example that of trying to obtain amendments in advance, have not encountered<br />
much success – although the reducti<strong>on</strong> in the time available for the work of the committee<br />
would have made these suggesti<strong>on</strong>s more useful. The <strong>on</strong>ly way of really improving the drafting<br />
process would seem to be to tackle the problem directly, i.e. at the instituti<strong>on</strong>al level and in its<br />
rules. I therefore felt it would be useful to have an annex c<strong>on</strong>taining a fairly detailed descripti<strong>on</strong><br />
of some of the aspects of the standard-setting procedure which are of direct c<strong>on</strong>cern to the<br />
C<strong>on</strong>ference and its functi<strong>on</strong>ing – and which, I believe, might, if they were re-examined or<br />
reviewed, c<strong>on</strong>tribute in a limited but effective way to improving the quality of the c<strong>on</strong>tent and<br />
wording of standards. The annex first deals with the need to review the way in which the questi<strong>on</strong>naire<br />
is drafted; this questi<strong>on</strong>naire serves as a basis for preparing instruments and often<br />
fixes their structure and even their c<strong>on</strong>tent at far too early a stage, before the Office has enough<br />
informati<strong>on</strong> at its disposal. It then looks at the amendments procedure in the technical committees<br />
which does not lend itself to finding soluti<strong>on</strong>s likely to meet with the widest approval.<br />
Finally, the annex discusses the difficulty of maintaining uniformity and c<strong>on</strong>sistency in the<br />
drafting principles and techniques in the technical committees and in the instruments. It points<br />
out the need to clarify and facilitate the role of drafting committees in this respect.<br />
In additi<strong>on</strong> to the various approaches and reforms which have just been suggested to improve<br />
the selecti<strong>on</strong> of instruments, their form and c<strong>on</strong>tent, I believe it indispensable that standard<br />
setting should have a more general self-correcting mechanism so that it can resp<strong>on</strong>d more<br />
effectively to the objectives it sets. In other words, there should be an efficient system whereby<br />
the bodies which produce the standards should be able to evaluate them in order to ascertain the<br />
impact of these standards and their relevance, thus drawing less<strong>on</strong>s for the future.<br />
D. THE NEED FOR AN OVERALL EVALUATION AFTER THE FACT<br />
An objective and systematic evaluati<strong>on</strong> of a product is an integral part of any modern<br />
system of producti<strong>on</strong>. And there is no reas<strong>on</strong> why the product of standard setting should be an<br />
excepti<strong>on</strong>. It might be thought that the Organizati<strong>on</strong> has already embarked <strong>on</strong> such an evaluati<strong>on</strong><br />
by setting up successive working parties <strong>on</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong> of standards, the most recent <strong>on</strong>e<br />
being that set up by the Governing Body following discussi<strong>on</strong>s at the C<strong>on</strong>ference in 1994; this<br />
group has carried out extremely valuable work, to which I have already referred. There is,<br />
however, a world of difference between an overall “clean up” operati<strong>on</strong> carried out every<br />
25 years or more which results, much later, in the realizati<strong>on</strong> that an instrument has become<br />
irreparably obsolete, and an evaluati<strong>on</strong> which allows the body that gave birth to the instrument<br />
to re-examine it within a fairly short time so as to be able to draw c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s, not <strong>on</strong>ly about<br />
the instrument in questi<strong>on</strong>, but in a more general way about the choice of subject-matter and<br />
c<strong>on</strong>tent of future standard setting.