Madam Chair
India thanks the Office for presenting a comprehensive and well-structured document outlining the legal framework, historical evolution, and procedural modalities relating to the determination of Members of Chief Industrial Importance.
At the outset, India wishes to recall that this item has emerged in the backdrop of the discussion of the 1986 Amendment of the Constitution of the ILO which was adopted with the objective of strengthening the democratization of the Organization’s governance structure. India has already ratified this amendment. We believe that renewed attention may be given to advancing its implementation.
However, We seek clarity as to the mandate of the proposal of initiating a review of members of Chief Industrial Importance. In our view the decision in the 353rd GB was to place an agenda on the process of determination and not of the initiation of a review or fresh determination.
We note that this process of determination is anchored in Articles 7(2) and 7(3) of the Constitution, which provide that such determination may be undertaken “as occasion requires.”
We also note that historically, such determinations have generally been undertaken in response to significant developments as mentioned in Appendix1. The principle of “as occasion requires” has thus been applied prudently. It would therefore be helpful if office clarifies the specific circumstances or developments that may warrant initiating such an exercise at this juncture.
Further, India would like to underline that any such process must be approached with careful consideration and clarity, particularly given its institutional significance and long-term implications.
We feel that a few aspects merit further reflection:
First, the document does not explicitly propose this exercise as an interim arrangement towards implementation of 1986 Amendment. If It is intended to operate in the nature of an interim or transitional approach, then this may require careful examination. Experience suggests that such approaches, if not clearly defined, may evolve into ad hoc or piecemeal arrangements, which could affect institutional clarity over time.
If it is not an interim arrangement, clarity may be required regarding the framework and periodicity of such determinations. It would also be useful to understand whether it is envisaged as a one-time exercise or part of a broader, predictable review cycle, so as to ensure stability and consistency in governance.
Further, this isolated exercise by ILO without UN reforms, including expansion in both categories of UNSC membership will undermine its effectiveness and credibility.
Alsp, given the ongoing institutional discussions and the prevailing global uncertainties, it may be advisable to proceed with due caution and careful consideration of timing and approach.
Chair,
India would like to emphasize that consensus must remain the cornerstone of any decision in this regard. It enhances the legitimacy and credibility of the outcome, ensuring that decisions enjoy broad acceptance across the membership. It also promotes inclusivity, allowing the perspectives of all Members to be adequately reflected. We align ourselves with consensus based approach as mentioned in ASPAG statement.
In conclusion, India is of the view that, considering the sensitivity of this issue and its implications for the governance structure of the ILO, it is important that any process be guided by the principles of objectivity, transparency, neutrality, and broad-based agreement.
India remains committed to engaging constructively with all Members in this process.
Thank you, Chair.
