On the occasion of the centenary of the International Labour Organization (ILO), this 11th special issue of
International Development Policy explores the Organization's capacity for action, its effectiveness and its ability to adapt and innovate. The collection of thirteen articles, written by authors from around the world, covers three broad areas: the ILO’s historic context and contemporary challenges; approaches and results in relation to labour and social protection; and the changes shaping the future of work. The articles highlight the progress and gaps to date, as well as the context and constraints faced by the ILO in its efforts to respond to the new dilemmas and challenges of the fourth industrial revolution, with regard to labour and social protection.
Contributors are Juliette Alenda-Demoutiez, Abena Asomaning Antwi, Zrampieu Sarah Ba, Stefano Bellucci, Thomas Biersteker, Filipe Calvão, Gilles Carbonnier, Nancy Coulson, Antonio Donini, Christophe Gironde, Karl Hanson, Mavis Hermanus, Velibor Jakovleski, Scott Jerbi, Sandrine Kott, Marieke Louis, Elvire Mendo, Eric Otenyo, Agnès Parent-Thirion, Sizwe Phakathi, Paul Stewart, Kaveri Thara, Edward van Daalen, Kees van der Ree, Patricia Vendramin, Christine Verschuur.
On 20 November 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Jaloud v the Netherlands held that the Netherlands had failed to adequately investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of an Iraqi citizen. Mr. Jaloud had allegedly been killed by a Dutch lieutenant at a vehicle control point in Iraq in 2004. The Court attributed the impugned conduct to the Netherlands and clarified that individuals injured by shots from the checkpoint fell within the jurisdiction of the Netherlands as it was controlling the checkpoint. The Court’s decisions on attribution and jurisdiction, we argue, are open to question and may not have created the anticipated clarification. Furthermore, we argue that the implications of Jaloud for the scope of the duty to investigate the use of lethal force in out-of-area military operations remain unclear and contested. In the Netherlands, which has a history of tension between military police and active serving soldiers, as well as an investigatory policy that is cautious about criminal investigations, more clarity was needed. Since the judgment fails to set out unambiguous legal obligations, we conclude that it is unlikely that the judgment will have an impact on investigatory policy.