Summary of the ConventionFor Grades K-5.
This is a summary of the rights contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child that is suitable for younger children. You can order the poster in various sizes through the online store located here. |
Unofficial Summary of the ConventionFor Grades 6-12.
This is an actual summary of each of the articles of the Convention courtesy of Cape Breton University Children's Rights Centre. You can order the poster in various sizes through the online store located here. |
The Official UN ConventionAppropriate for adults.
|
Brief Description
The Convention is a universally agreed upon set of non-negotiable standards and obligations that were built on varied legal systems and cultural traditions (UNICEF, n.d.). It is the most widely and most quickly ratified convention in world history, and it provides a “systematic and comprehensive statement on the status of the child and on the rights of children that did not exist before” (Howe & Covell, 2013). Unanimously approved by the United Nations General Assembly in 1989, it has since been ratified by virtually all countries of the world, and only the United States, South Sudan and Somalia have yet to join suit. Comprising of fifty-four articles, the Convention outlines the basic human rights that children everywhere are entitled to. The substantive rights in the Convention fall into three major categories: provision, protection, and participation rights. These include the right to survival; the right to develop to one’s fullest potential; the right to protection from harmful influences, abuses, and exploitation; and the right to participate in matters that affect the child (UNICEF, n.d.). Each right in the Convention is inherent to human dignity and the harmonious development of every child, and is based on three overarching principles of human rights. These include the principle of universality, which means that the rights contained in the Convention are universal to all children and that every child is entitled to them. The principle of indivisibility proclaims that the rights in the Convention are inherent to the dignity of every child and each right has equal status. Respect for all rights is required for their full enjoyment. Finally, the principle of interdependence states that each right contributes to the realization of the child’s dignity, and the fulfilment of one right depends wholly, or in part, on the fulfilment of other rights. The ratification of the Convention by a country, or States Party, obligates it to assume full responsibility for the welfare of each child within its national, regional, local, and familial jurisdictions. The moral and legal obligations herein relating to all actions concerning every child requires public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies to always have as their primary consideration the “best interests of the child” (Article 3) as is explicitly stipulated in the Convention.
Moral and Legal Dualism
The Convention is unique in encompassing both horizontal complexity theory characteristics and hierarchic top-down attributes. The historical origins of the Convention form the foundation for the moral commitments implicit within it, whereas the adoption of the Convention by the United Nations General Assembly in 1989 along with its subsequent ratification by States Parties defines its legal obligations. In order to better understand the moral aspects of the Convention, it is necessary to examine the Convention’s history predating its 1989 adoption by the United Nations General Assembly. An analysis of the process of ratification and subsequent implementation and monitoring defines the legal obligations of signatories to the Convention.
Moral Obligations
The concept of the child as an individual and independent rights bearing person emerged very recently in human history. For centuries children were viewed as properties of their parents with little or no status in society. Their situation improved slightly in the latter part of the nineteenth century as they became considered a distinctive and defenceless class requiring the protective care of society and the state (Howe & Covell, 2005). Increased social problems arising from industrialization, urbanization, and immigration precipitated a rising tide of humanitarianism and sentimentality towards children, and the protection and advancement of the interests of children slowly transitioned to the state (ibid). This move started to form the foundation for the Convention’s protective and provision rights. Later, in the period following the Second World War, the concept of the child as an independent bearer of rights emerged (ibid.). The origins of this thinking started with John Locke (1632 – 1704) who insisted, “that the child has needs and interests which should be recognized for what they are, and that the child should be reasoned with, not simply beaten or coerced into conformity with the rules of required behaviour” (Archard, 2004). This belief of the child possessing independent rights was further advanced through the work of Eglantyne Jebb, a British social activist in the early twentieth century. She advocated that children are deserving of better protection, and Save the Children Fund Union adopted her work in 1922, which was subsequently assumed by the League of Nations in 1924. At the same time, Dr. Janusz Korczak, a Polish educator, paediatrician, and writer, began advocating for the rights of children to express opinions in matters affecting them. He established progressive orphanages in Warsaw, Poland, where the orphans governed themselves under his caring tutelage. Korczak became a legend in Europe for his work with children, and his teachings came to inspire the Convention’s participation rights (UNICEF, n.d.).
The complex moral obligations outlined in the Convention pertaining the welfare of children stemmed from the work of many committed individuals who aimed to seek social justice for children. This led to the formation of the Convention’s ‘best interests principle’. This term is referenced in six articles, and they each deal with specific matters pertaining to the welfare of the child including child custody, adoption of children, and juvenile judicial proceedings. All assume the underlying principle outlined in the Convention’s Article 3, which is that, the “best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration” in all actions concerning children. The understanding is that ‘all actions’ includes the decision to act as well as refrain from acting in the best interests of the child (Howe & Covell, 2013). The Convention’s moral obligations are based on this principle, and any decision-making authority, in either the public or private sector, is morally required to always act in the best interests of the child in all matters concerning the child.
Legal Obligations
The Convention represents a “major milestone in the historic effort to achieve a world fit for children” (UNICEF, n.d.). Without exception, the Convention codifies the principles that Member States deemed to be universal for all children, without exception, merely through the fact that they were born into the human family (ibid.). Along with fulfilling the moral duties of society to its children, the Convention is also a binding treaty of international law (ibid.). Upon ratification, States Parties become unequivocally legally bound to realize its principles and provisions for all children within their jurisdiction, and agree to align their domestic laws, policies, and practices to be consistent with the Convention and the principle of ‘best interests of the child’ (Howe & Covell, 2013). Furthermore, the Convention provides the legal framework required for its successful implementation and monitoring by different actors at different levels of society. A Committee on the Rights of the Child that consists of ten experts of high moral standing monitors the progress made by States Parties in achieving the realization of the obligations undertaken in the Convention (Article 43). Basically, States Parties are required to submit progress reports to the Committee every five years (Article 44).
Moral and Legal Balancing Act
There is a delicate interplay between the moral and legal obligations required to uphold the Convention’s provisions and principles for every child. The United Nations is continuously working with States Parties and non-government organizations to overcome the many obstacles to the implementation of the Convention’s legal obligations. One major problem is that the Convention does not have any monitoring in the “strict sense” (Himes, 1993) and the United Nations monitoring procedures are “quite weak” (ibid). Also, there is a great deal of vagueness regarding the nature of the legal obligations of the States Parties (ibid). Essentially, the successful fulfilment of the Convention’s legal obligations requires the partnership of a moral commitment to always act in the ‘best interests’ of each child. Whether intentional or not, the architects of the Convention built in a moral appeal to always act in the ‘best interests’ of each child, and in doing so the Convention’s legal obligations are reinforced through a foundation of trust. And when States Parties fail to champion children’s rights, the public and media can nudge them towards fulfilling these legal obligations (UNICEF, n.d.). However, the hierarchic top-down framework implicit in fulfilling the Convention’s legal obligations has the potential to undermine the greater moral purpose of the Convention by sending messages of mistrust. Instead of imposing a set of legal consequences to those failing to fulfil the Convention’s obligations, a foundation of trust is created that encourages governments to practice “diversity and pluralism” (Goldspink, 2007) as they uphold the Convention’s principles and provisions because it is the right thing to do. Monitoring States Parties in the ‘strict sense’ would require policing countries by enforcing consequences to breaches of legal obligations that essentially undermines the potential benefits of the Convention in fostering a foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world (Convention).
Moral Obligations
The concept of the child as an individual and independent rights bearing person emerged very recently in human history. For centuries children were viewed as properties of their parents with little or no status in society. Their situation improved slightly in the latter part of the nineteenth century as they became considered a distinctive and defenceless class requiring the protective care of society and the state (Howe & Covell, 2005). Increased social problems arising from industrialization, urbanization, and immigration precipitated a rising tide of humanitarianism and sentimentality towards children, and the protection and advancement of the interests of children slowly transitioned to the state (ibid). This move started to form the foundation for the Convention’s protective and provision rights. Later, in the period following the Second World War, the concept of the child as an independent bearer of rights emerged (ibid.). The origins of this thinking started with John Locke (1632 – 1704) who insisted, “that the child has needs and interests which should be recognized for what they are, and that the child should be reasoned with, not simply beaten or coerced into conformity with the rules of required behaviour” (Archard, 2004). This belief of the child possessing independent rights was further advanced through the work of Eglantyne Jebb, a British social activist in the early twentieth century. She advocated that children are deserving of better protection, and Save the Children Fund Union adopted her work in 1922, which was subsequently assumed by the League of Nations in 1924. At the same time, Dr. Janusz Korczak, a Polish educator, paediatrician, and writer, began advocating for the rights of children to express opinions in matters affecting them. He established progressive orphanages in Warsaw, Poland, where the orphans governed themselves under his caring tutelage. Korczak became a legend in Europe for his work with children, and his teachings came to inspire the Convention’s participation rights (UNICEF, n.d.).
The complex moral obligations outlined in the Convention pertaining the welfare of children stemmed from the work of many committed individuals who aimed to seek social justice for children. This led to the formation of the Convention’s ‘best interests principle’. This term is referenced in six articles, and they each deal with specific matters pertaining to the welfare of the child including child custody, adoption of children, and juvenile judicial proceedings. All assume the underlying principle outlined in the Convention’s Article 3, which is that, the “best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration” in all actions concerning children. The understanding is that ‘all actions’ includes the decision to act as well as refrain from acting in the best interests of the child (Howe & Covell, 2013). The Convention’s moral obligations are based on this principle, and any decision-making authority, in either the public or private sector, is morally required to always act in the best interests of the child in all matters concerning the child.
Legal Obligations
The Convention represents a “major milestone in the historic effort to achieve a world fit for children” (UNICEF, n.d.). Without exception, the Convention codifies the principles that Member States deemed to be universal for all children, without exception, merely through the fact that they were born into the human family (ibid.). Along with fulfilling the moral duties of society to its children, the Convention is also a binding treaty of international law (ibid.). Upon ratification, States Parties become unequivocally legally bound to realize its principles and provisions for all children within their jurisdiction, and agree to align their domestic laws, policies, and practices to be consistent with the Convention and the principle of ‘best interests of the child’ (Howe & Covell, 2013). Furthermore, the Convention provides the legal framework required for its successful implementation and monitoring by different actors at different levels of society. A Committee on the Rights of the Child that consists of ten experts of high moral standing monitors the progress made by States Parties in achieving the realization of the obligations undertaken in the Convention (Article 43). Basically, States Parties are required to submit progress reports to the Committee every five years (Article 44).
Moral and Legal Balancing Act
There is a delicate interplay between the moral and legal obligations required to uphold the Convention’s provisions and principles for every child. The United Nations is continuously working with States Parties and non-government organizations to overcome the many obstacles to the implementation of the Convention’s legal obligations. One major problem is that the Convention does not have any monitoring in the “strict sense” (Himes, 1993) and the United Nations monitoring procedures are “quite weak” (ibid). Also, there is a great deal of vagueness regarding the nature of the legal obligations of the States Parties (ibid). Essentially, the successful fulfilment of the Convention’s legal obligations requires the partnership of a moral commitment to always act in the ‘best interests’ of each child. Whether intentional or not, the architects of the Convention built in a moral appeal to always act in the ‘best interests’ of each child, and in doing so the Convention’s legal obligations are reinforced through a foundation of trust. And when States Parties fail to champion children’s rights, the public and media can nudge them towards fulfilling these legal obligations (UNICEF, n.d.). However, the hierarchic top-down framework implicit in fulfilling the Convention’s legal obligations has the potential to undermine the greater moral purpose of the Convention by sending messages of mistrust. Instead of imposing a set of legal consequences to those failing to fulfil the Convention’s obligations, a foundation of trust is created that encourages governments to practice “diversity and pluralism” (Goldspink, 2007) as they uphold the Convention’s principles and provisions because it is the right thing to do. Monitoring States Parties in the ‘strict sense’ would require policing countries by enforcing consequences to breaches of legal obligations that essentially undermines the potential benefits of the Convention in fostering a foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world (Convention).