ers’ organizations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements. Although these conventions are expressed in terms that apply to all workers and all sectors,92 they nevertheless contain important provisos. Art. 9 of the 1948 Convention states: The extent to which the guarantees provided for in this convention shall apply to the armed forces and the police shall be determined by national laws or regulations. Similar wording appears in the other conventions (Art. 5 of the 1949 Convention and Art. 1.2 of the 1981 Convention). In complaints to the Freedom of Association Committee of the International Labour Organization about the propriety of such restrictions, the Committee has found that provisions dealing with exceptions should be interpreted restrictively (and should not apply, for example, to civilians working for the armed forces in manufacturing establishments or in a country’s army bank93). The committee has stated that, in cases of doubt, workers should be treated as civilians.94 An equally restrictive approach is evident from the text of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Art. 11.2 states: This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the state. Similar restrictions appear in Art. 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The ECHR restriction was applied by the European Commission on Human Rights to reject the claim of a violation of Art. 11 by workers at a UK intelligence establishment affected by a change in their conditions of service denying the right to belong to a trade union.95 Likewise, in a more recent case from Hungary (Rekvényi v. Hungary96), it was found that there was no violation of Art. 11 in prohibiting members of the armed forces, the police, and security services from joining any political party or taking part in various forms of public protest. It is clear from this jurisprudence that the concept of a “lawful restriction” under Art. 11.2 does not mean that all domestic laws restricting rights will necessarily be compatible with the Convention. The Convention organs employ a qualitative test: a legal restriction must be foreseeable in its effect and there must be an absence of arbitrariness.97 Some commentators have questioned whether a restriction under Art. 11.2 can operate to take away the right of association altogether. In the Rekvényi case, the Court preferred to leave open the related issue of whether Art. 11.2 was subject to a proportionality test when 92  For example, Art. 1 of the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981: “1. This Convention applies to all branches of economic activity.” 93  ILO Freedom of Association Committee, 238th Report, Case No. 1279, para. 140.a, and 284th Report, Case Nos. 1588 and 1595, para. 737.a. 94  ILO Freedom of Association Committee, 295th Report, Case No. 1771, para. 499. 95  Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v. United Kingdom, European Commission of Human Rights, 20 January 1987, Decisions and Reports, Vol. 50, 1987, p. 228. 96  Rekvényi v. Hungary, op. cit., note 68, p. 519. 97  Ibid., para. 59. 69 Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel