بررسی تطبیقی مبانی حقوق کار در استانداردهای سازمان بین‌المللی کار و قوانین ایران و عراق

Labor law, as one of the important branches of social law, has been formed with the aim of regulating the relations between workers and employers and protecting the workforce. With the expansion of wage labor relations and economic developments, governments have been forced to foresee extensive protective provisions in their domestic laws to protect workers and create a balance in labor relations. At the international level, the International Labor Organization (ILO) has developed numerous standards and conventions to provide a common framework for guaranteeing minimum workers' rights and has introduced five fundamental principles, including freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, prohibition of forced labor, elimination of child labor, prohibition of discrimination in employment, and the right to a safe and healthy workplace, as the fundamental foundations of the labor law system. This study, using a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach, examines the degree of compliance of the laws of the two countries with the fundamental principles of labor law.

Introduction

The protection of workers' rights has become one of the central concerns of contemporary international law. As globalization has intensified economic interdependence and labor mobility, the harmonization of national labor legislation with international standards has gained increasing significance. The International Labour Organization has established a universal framework for labor protection through numerous conventions and recommendations, identifying five fundamental principles as the cornerstone of international labor law: freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, the elimination of forced labor, the abolition of child labor, the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation, and the right to a safe and healthy working environment. These principles serve as internationally recognized benchmarks for evaluating domestic labor legislation. This study examines the extent to which the labor laws of Iran and Iraq conform to these fundamental principles and identifies the similarities and differences between the two legal systems.

Theoretical Framework

The research is grounded in the normative framework of international labor law developed by the International Labour Organization. The ILO's fundamental principles constitute universally accepted minimum labor standards that guide member states in designing labor legislation and promoting decent work. Rather than focusing solely on treaty ratification, the study adopts a comparative legal approach that evaluates the substantive consistency of national legislation with internationally recognized labor rights. This framework allows an assessment of both the protective scope of domestic labor laws and their alignment with global labor governance.
3.Methodology
This research employs a descriptive-analytical method combined with a comparative legal approach. The analysis is based on the examination of the labor legislation of Iran and Iraq in relation to the ILO's fundamental labor principles. Relevant statutory provisions concerning trade union rights, collective bargaining, forced labor, child labor, non-discrimination, and occupational safety and health were systematically compared with international labor standards. The study emphasizes legislative provisions rather than practical implementation or judicial enforcement, thereby providing a normative assessment of legal compatibility..

Results and Discussion

The findings indicate that both Iran and Iraq have incorporated substantial protective provisions into their labor legislation and demonstrate considerable legislative commitment to safeguarding workers' rights. Both legal systems prohibit forced labor and establish minimum working-age requirements broadly consistent with international labor standards. Nevertheless, important differences remain.
Regarding freedom of association, the Iranian labor system recognizes worker representation primarily through institutionalized mechanisms such as Islamic Labor Councils and professional associations, reflecting a more structured and state-regulated framework. In contrast, Iraqi labor legislation places greater emphasis on the independence of trade unions and provides broader legal guarantees for the establishment and operation of workers' organizations. Similarly, the Iraqi Labor Law offers a more comprehensive legal framework for collective bargaining and explicitly recognizes wider opportunities for collective negotiations between employers and workers. In the field of equality and non-discrimination, both legal systems prohibit discriminatory practices; however, Iraqi legislation identifies a broader range of prohibited grounds for discrimination in more explicit legal language. Furthermore, Iraq's legislative framework provides more detailed provisions concerning collective labor relations, while the Iranian model relies more heavily on institutional representation mechanisms. Overall, although both countries demonstrate significant legislative convergence with international labor standards, variations in institutional arrangements, the degree of organizational freedom, and the scope of collective labor rights reveal differing approaches to labor governance and legal protection.

Conclusions and Suggestions

The comparative analysis demonstrates that both Iran and Iraq have made meaningful legislative efforts to align their labor laws with the fundamental principles promoted by the International Labour Organization. Their legal systems exhibit substantial compliance in areas such as the prohibition of forced labor, child labor regulation, and occupational protection. However, notable differences persist regarding freedom of association, collective bargaining mechanisms, and the legal articulation of anti-discrimination guarantees. Iraqi labor legislation generally provides broader legal recognition of independent trade unions and collective bargaining rights, whereas Iranian labor law adopts a more institutionally regulated model of worker representation. These findings suggest that while both legal systems have achieved considerable progress in incorporating international labor standards, further legislative reforms—particularly in relation to freedom of association and collective labor rights—would enhance their compatibility with contemporary international labor law and contribute to stronger protection of workers' fundamental rights..