1. ILO – Theories of change in IOs Rational choice (exogenous) Neofunctionalism (endogenous) Historical institutionalism (multiple sources)

2. Core Features of the ILO Tri-partite « Versailles’ answer to Bolshevism », « an embarrassing reminder of the League », « cold war remnant », « avant-garde counterweight to economic globalization » Claim to universality « the failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations which desire to improve the conditions in their own countries » (1919 ILO Constitution, Preamble) Recognize need to be flexible Centralized monitoring

3. 1998 Core Labour Standards Alston: « a façade of labour rights protections is being painstakingly constructed in order to defuse the pressure from those concerned about the erosion of workers’ rights as a result of some aspects of globalization » Langille: « romanticizes and indeed almost hallucinates about the impact of the ‘old’ ILO regime …The role of the ILO is not to block through some legally binding agreement and legal enforcement mechanism the member states from pursuing their individual self-interest, but rather to help [them] see where their self-interest actually lies and to assist them in getting there » Standing: « As a standard-setting agency, it has faltered … As a development agency, it has over-stretched and as a knowledge agency it has drifted into a public relations mode … »