Convention on the Rights of the Child

All you want to know about Convention on the Rights of the Child

Convention on the Rights of the Child
Signed
- location		 November 20, 1989
Effective
- condition		 September 2, 1990
20 ratifications or accessions (Article 49)
Parties 193 (two non-parties: United States and Somalia)

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, often referred to as CRC or UNCRC, is an international convention setting out the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of children. Nations that ratify this international convention are bound by it by international law. Compliance is monitored by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child which is composed of members from countries around the world. Once a year, the Committee submits a report to the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, which also hears a statement from the CRC Chair, and the Assembly adopts a Resolution on the Rights of the Child.[1]

Governments of countries that have ratified the Convention are required to report to, and appear before, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child periodically to be examined on their progress with regards to the advancement of the implementation of the Convention and the status of child rights in their country. Their reports and the committee's written views and concerns are available on the committee's website.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention and opened it for signature on 20 November 1989 (the 30th anniversary of its Declaration of the Rights of the Child).[2] It came into force on 2 September 1990, after it was ratified by the required number of nations. All member nation states (countries) of the United Nations, except the United States and Somalia,[3] have ratified it.

The Convention generally defines a child as any person under the age of 18, unless an earlier age of majority is recognized by a country's law.

Contents

Contents

The Convention deals with the child-specific needs and rights. It requires that states act in the best interests of the child. This approach is different from the common law approach found in many countries that had previously treated children and wives as possessions or chattels, ownership of which was often argued over in family disputes. In many jurisdictions, properly implementing the Convention requires an overhaul of child custody and guardianship laws, or, at the very least, a creative approach within the existing laws.

The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping and have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated.

The Convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, to have their privacy protected and requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference.

The Convention also obliges signatory states to provide separate legal representation for a child in any judicial dispute concerning their care and asks that the child's viewpoint be heard in such cases. The Convention forbids capital punishment for children.

The Convention also has two optional protocols, adopted by the General Assembly in May 2000 and applicable to those states that have signed and ratified them: The Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.

State parties and signatories

According to Amnesty International, 193 states are party to the Convention [4], including almost all the members of the United Nations, apart from the United States and Somalia.

Canada

Canada has ratified the Convention but has not fully implemented the Convention in Canadian domestic laws. A nonprofit organization called the Canadian Children's Rights Council promotes awareness of the CRC in Canadian media, and provides resources on their website pertaining to the Convention.[5] Youth criminal laws in Canada underwent major changes resulting in the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) which went into effect on April 1, 2003. [6] In 1989, the Canadian House of Commons voted unanimously to pass a non-binding resolution to end child poverty by the year 2000. However, the child poverty rate did not change between 1989 and 2000; 16% of Canadian children still live in poverty. [7]

India

In India, there is no outright ban on child labor, and the practice is generally permitted in most industries except those deemed “hazardous”. Although a law last October banned child labor in hotels, restaurants, and as domestic servants, there continues to be high demand for children as hired help in the home. Current estimates as to the number of child laborers in the country range from the government’s conservative estimate of 12 million children under 14 years of age to the much higher estimates of children’s rights activists, which hover around 60 million. Little is being done to address the problem since the economy is booming and the nuclear family is spreading, thereby increasing demand for child laborers.[8]

Ireland

The Republic of Ireland signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child on 30 September 1990 and ratified it, without reservation, on 21 September 1992.[9] In response to criticisms expressed in the 1998 review by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in Geneva, the Irish government established the office of Ombudsman for Children and drew up a national children's strategy. In 2006, following concerns expressed by the committee that the wording of the Irish Constitution does not allow the State to intervene in cases of abuse other than in very exceptional cases, the Irish government undertook to amend the constitution to make a more explicit commitment to children's rights.[10]

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention in 1996 and considers it to be a valid source of domestic law. The Committee on the Rights of the Child, which reviewed Saudi Arabia’s treatment of children under the Convention in January 2005, strongly condemned the government for its practice of imposing the death penalty on juveniles, calling it "a serious violation of the fundamental rights". The committee said it was “deeply alarmed” over the discretionary power judges hold to treat children as adults: In its 2004 report the Saudi Arabia government had stated that it "never imposes capital punishment on persons... below the age of 18". However the government delegation later acknowledged that a judge could impose the death penalty whenever he decided that the convicted person had reached his or her majority, regardless of the person’s actual age at the time of the crime or at the time of the scheduled execution.[11]

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom ratified the Convention on 16 December 1991, with several declarations and reservations,[12] and made its first report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in January 1995. Concerns raised by the Committee included the growth in child poverty and inequality, the extent of violence towards children, the use of custody for young offenders, the low age of criminal responsibility, and the lack of opportunities for children and young people to express views.[13] The 2002 report of the Committee expressed similar concerns, including the welfare of children in custody, unequal treatment of asylum seekers, and the negative impact of poverty on children's rights. There was much attention in the media to the criticism of UK parent's rights to hit their children as 'a serious violation of the dignity of the child'.[14]. In September 2008 the UK government decided to give up its reservations and agree to the Convention in full.[15][16]

United States

The United States has signed the Convention, but not completed the ratification processes.[17] On February 16, 1995, Madeleine Albright, at the time the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, signed the Convention. Though generally supportive of the Convention, President Bill Clinton did not submit it to the Senate for its advice and consent. [18]

Opposition to ratification

The United States has not so far ratified the CRC, in part due to potential conflicts with the constitution and because of opposition by some political and religious conservatives to the treaty.[19]

The administration of President George W. Bush has explicitly stated its opposition to the treaty:

"The Convention on the Rights of the Child may be a positive tool for promoting child welfare for those countries that have adopted it. But we believe the text goes too far when it asserts entitlements based on economic, social and cultural rights. ... The human rights-based approach ... poses significant problems as used in this text." [20]

Active opposition to the Convention in the United States has been concentrated in politically conservative groups.[21] Senator Jesse Helms, the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, described it as a "bag of worms," an effort to "chip away at the U.S. Constitution."[22]

Legal concerns over ratification have mostly focused on issues of sovereignty and federalism.[23] The United States generally does not sign treaties that it believes would impair its sovereignty.[24] American laws for the protection of children are at the state, rather than the federal level, and the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution restricts the authority of the federal government to pass legislation or ratify treaties that will protect children. The U.S. Constitution not only limits federal jurisdiction over children, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that to some significant degree, no government—federal, state, or local—may interfere with the parent-child relationship.[25][26].

The Heritage Foundation sees the conflict as an issue of national control over domestic policy: "Although not originally promoted as an entity that would become involved in actively seeking to shape member states’ domes­tic policies, the U.N. has become increasingly intrusive in these arenas."[27] They express concern about "sovereign jurisdiction over domes­tic policymaking and preserving the freedom of American civil society",[28] and argue that the actual practice of some UN Committees has been to review national policies that are unrelated, or are marginally related to the actual language of the Convention.[29] Supporters of homeschooling express concern that the Convention will "subvert the authority of parents to exercise important responsibilities toward their children. Under the UN Convention, parental responsibility exists only insofar as parents are willing to further the independent choices of the child."[30]

David Smolin argues that the objections from the religious and political conservatives stem from their view that the U.N. is an elitist institution, which they do not trust to properly handle sensitive decisions regarding family issues.[31] He suggests that legitimate concerns of critics could be met with appropriate reservations by the U.S. [32]

Support for ratification

The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child argues that criticisms mentioned by opponents of the convention "are the result of misconceptions, erroneous information, and a lack of understanding about how international human rights treaties are implemented in the United States",[33] and that ratification "would establish a useful framework from which our leaders could create cost-effective and comprehensive policies and programs that address the specific needs of children and families."[34]

World Vision, which is a large evangelical Christian relief NGO, has supported ratification of the Convention.[35] Smolin states that this support is probably more typical of worldwide evangelical Christian opinion because, globally, Christians who seek to help the "vulnerable, poor, needy, and oppressed...apparently find more inspiration than fear in the words of the CRC." [36] Other organisations which have supported ratification include Church World Service[37], the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States[38], Church Women United[39], and the National Council of Churches.[40]

Conflicts with U.S. law

 This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (August 2008)

Article 37 of the Convention prohibits sentencing of juveniles to life imprisonment with no opportunity for parole. Laws in approximately 20 U.S. states appear to conflict with this article.[41] The 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roper v. Simmons found juvenile execution unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment, but does not cover the question of life without possibility of parole.[42]

Objections

United States

Ratification of the UNCRC by the United States would require the U.S. governments to appear before the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, a panel of child rights experts from around the world, every 5 years to explain their implementation of such issues as universal health insurance for all American children, currently a human right in all other western industrialized nations. In 2006, 11.7% of children in the U.S. did not have health insurance.[43]

The most controversial tenets of the Convention are the participatory rights granted to children.[44] The Convention champions youth voice in new ways. Article 12 states:

"Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child ... the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child..."[45]

The USA and Somalia are the only countries which have failed to ratify that agreement.[46] Most often Americans dismiss the CRC with the reasoning that the nation already has in place everything the treaty espouses, and that it would make no practical difference.[47] The two reasons often given for the US Senate not ratifying the convention were that the State of Texas allows children to be given the death penalty, which the Convention would not allow, and hence lead to a conflict between Federal laws and State laws, and the claim by Conservatives that "this Treaty would virtually undermine parents’ rights as we know it in the United States" [48] Much of the opposition to children's rights in the United States is currently expressed towards the Convention on the Rights of the Child, with US President George W. Bush explaining in 2001:

"The Convention on the Rights of the Child may be a positive tool for promoting child welfare for those countries that have adopted it. But we believe the text goes too far when it asserts entitlements based on economic, social and cultural rights.... The human rights-based approach... poses significant problems as used in this text."[49]

Several conservative religious organizations in the United States oppose parts of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These organizations include the Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the John Birch Society, the National Center for Home Education,[50] Home School Legal Defense Association[51] and the Rutherford Institute.[52] The United States Senate has repeatedly rebuffed attempts to ratify the agreement as well, with 26 senators signing a 1995 resolution stating,

"...the Convention’s intrusion into national sovereignty was manifested by the Convention’s 1995 committee report faulting the United Kingdom for permitting parents to make decisions for their children without consulting those children... The President should not sign and transmit to the Senate that fundamentally flawed convention."

Other religious[53] and social organizations opponents oppose the Convention on the basis of parental rights. According to one organization the CRC, "is capable of attacking the very core of the child-parent relationship, removing parents from their central role in the growth and development of a child, and replacing them with the long arm of government supervision within the home."[54]

David Smolin, otherwise a proponent who urges U.S. reservations, argues that Article 5, which includes a provision stating that parents "provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention"[55], "is couched in language which seems to reduce the parental role to that of giving advice".[56] The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child argues that the Convention protects parental responsibility from government interference.[57]

Stuart Birks states that the Convention may be interpreted to support a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting in the case of divorce or separation.[58]

Optional Protocols

Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict

Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography

See also

References

  1. ^ CRIN - Child Rights Information Network - Resources - Treaties - Convention on the Rights of the Child
  2. ^ United Nations General Assembly Resolution 25 session 44 Convention on the Rights of the Child on 20 November 1989
  3. ^ CRIN - Child Rights Information Network - Resources - Treaties - Convention on the Rights of the Child
  4. ^ Children's Rights [1]
  5. ^ UN CRC. Retrieved 4/1/08.
  6. ^ Canadian Children's Rights Council [2]
  7. ^ Canadian Children's Rights Council Child poverty. Retrieved 4/1/08.
  8. ^ “Children’s domestic labor resists India’s legal efforts,” http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/18/news/india.php
  9. ^ Children's Rights Alliance website
  10. ^ Carl O'Brien, "UN to seek changes in Constitution in support of children", Irish Times, 28 September 2006.
  11. ^ Human Rights Watch, Saudi Arabia: Follow U.N. Call to End Juvenile Death Penalty, January 2006 [3]
  12. ^ Nick Frost, Child Welfare: Major Themes In Health And Social Welfare, Taylor and Francis (2004), page 175.
  13. ^ Martin Davies, The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Social Work, page 354.
  14. ^ Colin J. Harvey, Human Rights In The Community: Rights As Agents For Change, Hart Publishing (2005), page 234.
  15. ^ "UK to sign UN children convention". BBC News (2008-09-19). Retrieved on 2008-09-19.
  16. ^ Easton, Mark (2008-09-19). "UK to give up child rights opt-outs". BBC News. Retrieved on 2008-09-19.
  17. ^ Smolin, Overcoming Religious Objections. [4] [5] [6]
  18. ^ The Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography
  19. ^ Smolin, Overcoming Religious Objections [7]
  20. ^ Wnd.com News Article [8]
  21. ^ Smolin, Overcoming Religious Objections to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, page 83. [9]
  22. ^ T. Jeremy Gunn, The Religious Right and the Opposition to U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, page 117.[10]
  23. ^ Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lainie Rutkow and Joshua T. Lozman. Harvard Human Rights Review, Vol. 19, Spring 2006. ISSN 1057-5057. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#Heading170.
  24. ^ Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lainie Rutkow and Joshua T. Lozman. Harvard Human Rights Review, Vol. 19, Spring 2006. ISSN 1057-5057. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#Heading170.
  25. ^ in Pierce v. Society of Sisters 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
  26. ^ Meyer 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
  27. ^ Human Rights and Social Issues at the U.N.: A Guide for U.S. Policymakers
  28. ^ Human Rights and Social Issues at the U.N.: A Guide for U.S. Policymakers
  29. ^ How U.N. Conventions On Women's and Children's Rights Undermine Family, Religion, and Sovereignty
  30. ^ Oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
  31. ^ Smolin, Overcoming Religious Objections [11]
  32. ^ Smolin, Overcoming Religious Objections, 110 at [12]
  33. ^ Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Myths and Facts on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)[13]
  34. ^ The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child brief on the Convention
  35. ^ World Vision, Here we stand: World Vision and child rights (2nd edition), 17 Dec 2007
  36. ^ Smolin, Overcoming Religious Objections, 109 at [14]
  37. ^ Children just need a chance
  38. ^ National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States
  39. ^ Church Women United
  40. ^ National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, Resolution on the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  41. ^ In 2002, 22 U.S. states allowed for the execution of juvenile offenders. Human Rights Watch, http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/05/unchildrenqa0502.htm.
  42. ^ U.S.: Supreme Court Ends Child Executions (Human Rights Watch, March 1, 2005)
  43. ^ Historical Health Insurance Tables US Census Bureau
  44. ^ Mason, M.A. (2005) "The U.S. and the international children's rights crusade: leader or laggard?" Journal of Social History. Summer.
  45. ^ "Article 12". Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved 4/3/08.
  46. ^ Arts, K. and Popovski, V. (2006) International Criminal Accountability and the Rights of Children. Cambridge Press.
  47. ^ Mason, M.A. (2005) "The U.S. and the international children's rights crusade: leader or laggard?" Journal of Social History. Summer.
  48. ^ Klicka, C.J. "The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: The Most Dangerous Attack on Parents’ Rights In the History of the United States", Home School Legal Defense Association. Retrieved 8/19/08.
  49. ^ Anderson, MJ (2001) [ "Bush team signals new U.N. direction, Decries 'erosion of parental authority' in internationalization of family policy"], WorldNetDaily.com. February 02, 2001. Retrieved 2/24/08.
  50. ^ Opposition to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Children's Rights Campaign. Retrieved 4/3/08.
  51. ^ Klicka, C.J. and Estrada, W.A. "The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: The Most Dangerous Attack on Parents’ Rights In the History of the United States", Home School Legal Defense Association. Retrieved 4/3/08.
  52. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions about Children's Rights", Amnesty International USA. Retrieved 2/24/08.
  53. ^ Cale, J. The Convention on the Rights of the Child: Freedom or Bondage?" EWTN Global Catholic Network. Retrieved 4/3/08.
  54. ^ "The threat from international law." ParentalRights.org. Retrieved 4/3/08.
  55. ^ Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3
  56. ^ David M. Smolin, Overcoming Religious Objections to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 81, 90 Emory International Law Review, Vol. 20 (2006).
  57. ^ Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, CRC FAQs - Myths and Facts (emphasis added)
  58. ^ Birks, Stuart (June 2002). "INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION II:WHY THE FAMILY COURT PROTESTS?"". Centre for Public Policy Evaluation College of Business, Massey University. Retrieved on 2007-04-13.

External links

Wikisource has original text related to this article:
v • d • e
Youth empowerment
Elements
Types
Barriers
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child"

No comments have been added.



Your name:

City:

Country:

Your comments:

Security check *
(Please enter the number into adjoining box)

 

  • Ads

           
eXTReMe Tracker