Abstract
This paper put forward a subaltern perspective to outline the conditions of colonial labour during the interwar era. It is argued that despite the efforts of postcolonial international legal scholars to make the subaltern class visible, the latter’s voice remained scanty. One of the reasons is the paradox of international law. As noted by Chimni, “It is an instrument of subjugation and of liberation, of exploitation and possible emancipation”. This dichotomy can be witnessed in the transactions of international institutions, notably the International Labour Organization (‘ILO’). On the one hand, the ILO was regarded as the pacesetter for labour interests; on the other hand, it had the least regard for the sufferings of colonial labour. The language of Article 35 of the Constitution of the ILO that addresses colonial labour reflects ILO’s predilection for imperial powers. By restricting the automatic application of the ILO conventions in the colonies, Article 35 bestowed wider discretionary power to the colonial powers. Since its inception, the ILO has operated in a way that suits the interests of the imperial powers, reinforcing the dichotomous structure of international law. The bias of the ILO was apparent in all the instruments it adopted during the interwar period as well as in the later years.
Recommended Citation
Raju, Aathira
(2024)
"Colonies and International Labour Organization: A Subaltern Outlook,"
National Law School of India Review: Vol. 35:
Iss.
2, Article 11.
DOI: 10.55496/AQYI2601
Available at:
https://repository.nls.ac.in/nlsir/vol35/iss2/11
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
10.55496/AQYI2601
