How to Approach International (Labor) Law – From the Perspective of Labor Law Professor Vlajko Brajić
He gazed thoughtfully towards the horizon from his office at the Federal Secretariat for Foreign Affairs of the SFRY. As a seasoned professor of labor law and the director of the Commission for International Labor Law within that body, he sought ways to perform his duties as effectively as possible. He was aware that the country held a unique socio-political position and was too small to impose its labor system, but he felt compelled to act, turning weaknesses into strengths and threats into opportunities. He somewhat aspired to the comparative legal model of his colleague, Professor Konstantinović, but in terms of “modeling outstanding social phenomena.” If Konstantinović succeeded, perhaps he could achieve something similar.
Regardless, he knew he first had to recall and adhere to the tried and tested results and words he once expressed in his works. Before stepping into the unknown, he needed to remind himself of his fundamental principles regarding work, labor relations, and society in general. “Labor is a purposeful activity and only a part of society.” Work, not labor relations, because work is the same everywhere, while labor relations are a legal concept that differs from country to country. Understanding labor means understanding that society, in the methodology of Professor Lukić and the “nodal theory of the system.”
As he contemplated these ideas, he wondered if scientific disciplines like political science and labor could be combined into a “geopolitical labor science,” of course, in a given context, “as opposed to domestic, into some international (geo)political labor science” that could be used in his work and would also be practically useful for society, companies, and the like. His thoughts already wandered through his own textbook on “Labor Law.” Technique is undoubtedly significant and irreplaceable in work and a condition for technological and any other progress. He devoted his doctoral dissertation to this topic. The content of what he wrote back then surged as he searched for a labor ethos.
“Technological progress, or the development of technology, such as computers, the internet, etc., is still ongoing. Countries that adapt to technological development, not only in terms of developing the technology itself but also through companies, will be leaders. But how to keep up with this both domestically and internationally due to the increasing interdependence of economic entities, states, and people in the form of migration?” He first had to create a general science of labor, where the sociology of labor only partially satisfied that need, and where other sciences also played a role: psychology, occupational psychiatry, social psychology, philosophy of labor, that geopolitics of labor, but also economic disciplines like organizational culture, labor economics, and collective labor relations. He was well aware, of course, that law, especially in the form of a norm, is essential but not the only one. Its content is much more important because the form of a legal norm cannot be understood without those disciplines or the conditions in which it is carried out, especially in the case of international character, as some new theory of games of a multidisciplinary general science of labor in an international context.
A long time ago, he established in his doctoral dissertation that “besides technological progress, we also need progress in social relations or social views, which does not necessarily have to change the current system of social relations, for example, by linking it to the liberal idea or, if the existing system does not work, to some other, opposite, socio-economic system.” It seems that even colleague Lukić in his book “Political Theory of the State” speaks precisely of that authenticity (not autarky). In short, technological development requires all other forms of adaptation. Lukić also mentioned something about this in his “History of Political and Legal Ideas.”
However, all this thinking should not be bureaucratic but rather “for the benefit” of workers, as well as the companies in which they work, and the society in which they live. He had already seen the success of the comparative legal method with colleague Konstantinović and viewed his work as only part of the whole of other bodies of the Federal Secretariat. As the director of the Commission, he began to think more pragmatically, looking for where and how to set a hypothesis, research it, and apply it socially responsibly, seeking sociological logic through the methodology of the universality of International Labor Organization law. He realized that we live in an emerging world, and technological progress, from the industrial age and the advent of the first computers, was just one indicator that employment, and not only that, would be a particular challenge in such circumstances, which is why he devoted his doctoral dissertation to the same topic. “Much depends on how we position ourselves in the next ten to twenty years,” as Professor Budimir Košutić used to say. He wondered if there could be a (geo)political labor and social hypothesis about a specific methodology, that perhaps “one common thread” could connect, maybe not all, but most countries in this field so that our society and the entities within it would feel the improvement.
And just in that doctoral dissertation, he established that mutual bilateral cooperation is much more qualitative than multilateral. He really needed a developed “philosophy” first because it is the highest mental understanding of reality, from which not only legal norms but also all work and other phenomena related to work are deduced, through a spillover effect, and not only in our country. And he needed that particular philosophy related to law, both domestic and international (bilateral). He first wondered where to find that “physis,” that “eternal, everywhere, in everything, for everything applicable” in natural law, that Absolute, Absolute Spirit, World Spirit, or whatever it may be called. He had to start from such an approach because he was deeply aware of all the real circumstances in which he operated to move towards some eternal idea.
Just there, as part of some broader policy, he found, according to sociological logic, the methodology of universality of the comparative-analogical method of the ILO and its ideological foundations. Inspiration arose from “The System of Philosophy and Philosophy of Law” by Professor Radomir Lukić. And just as he argued in his textbook that technological progress is a condition for progress but does not take care of humans, he now nostalgically recalled that he saw all the consequences of that view, that labor can be purposeful but also destructive to the individual, that is, to people themselves and their relationships. Therefore, he formulated the thesis of the parallel development of social relations alongside technological development. If the focus is solely on technological progress, if “labor is a commodity” and “social relations are not important,” and if people are treated as material things, it will not end well, especially if “everything, absolutely everything, must be commercialized.”
He knew that the philosophical system of international politics and law, although not yet rounded off, was what constituted a logically closed system that, if “nothing stands out,” clearly meets the set political goals. But, untested, just like philosophy, it differs from science. Since he knew that there must be no mistakes, he tried to supplement that philosophy with natural philosophy and natural sciences, as something closer to the Absolute, the Absolute SPIRIT, which is the only thing we can and should be guided by, and from there to derive the norms of the legal system in the form of axioms, as the highest concepts, like the Constitution. He tried first to determine the philosophical concept of law if law is force, a monopoly of coercion, but since there are also other normative systems that act similarly, he had to logically seek the identity for Sl(n), where S is synergy (meaning: all, everywhere, in everything), L is logic (logos), and N is normative regularities (normative, law), despite the individual’s freedom from labor-social, normative rules, our domestic ones, to become a magnet for others (which may not be impossible to find!?), but also through understanding other normative systems. Or the formula: Sl(n) = L * N, where Sl(n) is the synergy of normative systems, L is precisely that logic (logos), and N is the normative system, which includes law.
He was aware of the strangeness of such an approach, but he was also aware of all the real resources available to him and that we are on the brink of a new era. In the search for synergy, he knew he needed to consult with someone about Leibniz and other minds!? With such an understanding of the domestic legal system, respecting, of course, our semi-planned system, the freedom to contract while respecting the strategic directions of society as a kind of public order, public/general interest, semi-determinism, with ALL-ENCOMPASSING (THREE)ONE DIGNITY of the person at work, for predictability and all other values of the legal system, and harmony in the relationship “individual-collective-general,” we could become a magnet for others.
And he clearly understood the essence of the transition from one system to another because “the norm can be easily changed, but law is not just a norm,” as colleague Lukić says in “Methodology of Law.” He also knew that international labor law policy is only part of broader international politics, so in the sense of the above, he only set the thesis, further elaborating it on the international labor aspect. Therefore, he decided on the following approach. Like with Venn diagrams, one should look for all domestic factors that, with the related countries, can form a UNION. Of course, since each comparative legal system is a system in itself, where there is an INTERSECTION, mixed committees should be formed, coordinated, and strengthened to enhance the factors that fall into the INTERSECTION, and for the inevitable DIFFERENCES, mechanisms for resolution should be found, but within the framework of the founding and fundamental acts of the ILO, perhaps as a product of the ABSOLUTE, the ABSOLUTE SPIRIT, in addition to the indicated approach through their methodology, and while appreciating the essence of natural law as a basis for positive law, to be able to meet the set political goals.
He also knew that the law in the final step must be the rule and measure for everything that has been said, the ALPHA and OMEGA, just as Aristotle said, “in the hands of the philosopher lies the future,” but in his hands, through the new transition of the domestic political system, it lies more than just a perspective, because of all the above.
All this thought had to be projected through some practical steps in a very concrete way, precisely through the comparative-analogical method, following the ILO methodology and through its ideological basis, as an indication of some new geopolitical map. “The voice of God” in his work became the guiding principle: “Nudge gently, dear God, gently guide those who take care of their loved ones,” from that basic, natural law, because all work is mutual, joint, and for the benefit of all. He was already picturing the concrete measures he would need to propose, and in his imagination, it seemed that they would be accepted, applied, and possibly achieve results. He pondered what steps to take and knew the path he had set out on. He decided to refine the ideas further, allowing them to be guided by the rhythm of time and future development, in the face of history’s progression.
In the later stages of his career, Professor Brajić, having further developed his approach, became more engaged in international dialogue. The ideas he nurtured in his academic and administrative roles slowly began to resonate on a broader stage. Internationally, his proposals were cautiously welcomed, and within the domestic sphere, his influence grew as he provided a bridge between evolving global labor standards and the unique socio-economic system of his homeland.
His legacy, while complex and sometimes controversial, left an indelible mark on the study of labor law, especially within international contexts. His interdisciplinary approach, blending legal theory with broader socio-political and technological considerations, offered a new lens through which labor relations could be understood and governed in an increasingly interconnected world.
4o