David Weissbrodt, Prospects for Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child

• Citation: Vol. 20 No. 1
• Publication year: 2006

PROSPECTS FOR RATIFICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

David Weissbrodt^*

Since early in the development of international human rights law, the particular need to care for children has been acknowledged. Beginning with the Geneva Declaration on the Rights of the Child in 1924¹and the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1959,²children's rights have been recognized by human rights organizations and instruments alike. Rights of the child were included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;³the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War;⁴the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;⁵and other instruments of specialized agencies and organizations.⁶

The General Assembly unanimously adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child⁷in 1989, and it has since become the most quickly ratified human rights treaty in history. It is also the most widely ratified of all human rights treaties, with 192 States Parties.⁸The Convention calls upon governments to promote the rights of children, with special emphasis on the authority of parents and family, while giving consideration to a child's age and maturity.⁹

The Convention also established the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the body that monitors the implementation of the treaty.¹⁰Since the adoption of the Convention, children's rights have come to the forefront of human rights efforts, and some improvements have been made for children.¹¹Despite its demonstrated success and near-universal approval, the United States has not ratified the Convention. The United States remains one of only two countries, along with Somalia, that has failed to become a party to the Convention.¹²

One reason for the U.S. failure to ratify the Convention is its traditional reluctance to submit to international legal obligations. A treaty such as the Convention requires "advice and consent" of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. A two-thirds majority is a more stringent requirement than that of any other nation for ratifying treaties. Once the Senate has given its consent, the treaty is sent to the President for ratification. Getting the near-consensus required in the Senate is difficult, and such consensus is especially difficult to attain for the Convention, which has been met with vehement opposition.

Politically conservative organizations, particularly religious groups, have publicly demonized the Convention, claiming that its adoption would usurp state and national authority and destroy the American family. Groups including Focus on the Family,¹³Family Research Council,¹⁴Eagle Forum,¹⁵

Christian Coalition,¹⁶the John Birch Society,¹⁷and Concerned Women for America¹⁸have voiced concerns that granting rights to children will erode parental rights and "traditional" family values. They also assert that affording rights to children will undermine the authority of parents and even provide children with a forum to sue parents.¹⁹The Eagle Forum has asserted that "[t]his treaty will gravely interfere with parents' rights to raise and educate their children. The treaty assumes that the UN rights of the child would be enforced against parents, probably by government attorneys."²⁰

In this view, "child rights" is translated to mean that "the state will become the final authority over a child. The parent is relegated to the role of caretaker."²¹The Heritage Foundation claims that the Convention "urges states to give minor children a 'right to privacy,' even in the household"²²and the right to full freedom of expression at home and in school.²³The Family Research Council has also focused criticism on the provisions regarding privacy. For example, it is argued that because Article 13, regarding a child's freedom of expression, contains no provision for parental supervision,²⁴children will be made the "prey of satanic cults, pornographers and Internet pedophiles among other dangers."²⁵Article 15 regarding a child's freedom of association²⁶has been similarly criticized, posing the risk of "terrible things that happen to children when they frequent Internet chat rooms . . . . There is no parental supervision of the freedom of association of a child?"²⁷

...