New Zealand has signed and ratified dozens of International Labour Organisation Conventions dating back to 1921. They all fetter the sovereignty of New Zealand. As a member of the ILO, New Zealand is required to report on its application of ILO Conventions.
That limitation on the sovereignty of New Zealand is no more and no less than in an international trade agreement. New Zealand can renounce an international trade agreement and has renounced nine International Labour Organisation conventions.
Jane Kelsey makes the following points about the legal implications of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement:
The 30 chapter Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) constrains domestic law and policy at central government level, and in places by local government and SOEs, in diverse areas beyond traditional aspects of international trade.
…The TPP provides cumulative opportunities for foreign states and corporations to influence domestic decisions which may be burdensome and intrusive.
The exact same objections apply to the ILO conventions. The union movement does not hesitate to argue that the democratic process in New Zealand should be overridden because the proposal at hand purportedly conflicts with an ILO convention.
For example, when the government was choosing to deregulate collective bargaining, the sovereignty of Parliament was questioned because of an ILO convention. Helen Kelly, CTU President said:
in Parliament on 4 June, the Minister was asked if he agreed with advice from officials that the ability for employers to opt out of multi-employer bargaining may breach our obligations under ILO Convention 98 on the right to organise and collective bargaining.
…There is no point attending such an important UN ILO conference at the time your Government is being advised it is breaching its undertakings to that very organisation…
The CTU President also referred to the regulatory impact statement prepared for that collective bargaining legislation:
The paper also points out that these changes open NZ up to international examination by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) for non-compliance with Convention 98 – on the Right to Organise and Collectively Bargain, which New Zealand has signed up to.
Helen Kelly says “at least four of the proposals are deemed to be inconsistent with our international obligations, and two of them are classified as uncertain. Why the Government wants law changes that damage our international obligations is unclear.”
Council of Trade Unions submissions to minimum wage reviews have at least a dozen references to ILO conventions and the requirement to honour their provisions.
Posner and Goldsmith rightly argue that international law is a product of states pursuing their interests on the international stage. It does not induce states to comply contrary to their interests. The possibilities for what it can achieve are limited.
Government sign-up to various international agreements depending on their political priorities. You cannot complain that governments that you did not vote do what government you voted for also did, which was sign up to international agreements that suited their political agendas. The solution is to work harder to win the next general election.
As for opposing trade agreements on sovereignty grounds, it is rank hypocrisy for the union movement to do so given the number of times it cites international labour agreements when it suits them and seeks their inclusion in trade agreements to raise labour costs in developing countries.