The drafting process for the Convention was not plain sailing for the team of State delegates, experts and NGO representatives, who met to begin work. While to some of us it might seem surprising that there could be disagreement on the scope of children’s rights, the atmosphere in the meeting rooms was, at times, tense. In fact, the longest discussions concerned an article which, at first glance, might seem uncontroversial. The definition of the child (article 1) “caused a great deal of disagreement and argument”, according to an account of the drafting process, largely over whether that definition should include a child before birth.
Other articles also stoked the fires. On the role of the mass media (article 17), two camps emerged: one prioritised a free flow of information¸ while the other emphasised the need to protect children from harmful information. It was the first view that, in the end, prevailed. Participants struggled to reach consensus on the provisions for adoption (article 21). Delegates of States with an Islamic culture found the suggested article difficult to accept, because adoption is not recognised in these countries.
Delegates from some countries were particularly concerned about the provision requiring that primary education be free and available to all. They argued they would not be able to fulfil such a requirement.
It is somewhat ironic, given their subsequent stark refusal to ratify, that the United States eagerly took a leadership position in the drafting process. In fact, writes Cynthia Price Cohen, the U.S. “was by far the most active, making proposals and textual recommendations for thirty-eight of the forty substantive articles.” Moreover, the US was one of only six governments to propose additional provisions, ultimately contributing more new articles than the others combined.
The U.S. proposals focused primarily on individual rights and freedoms from expression and religion to association and privacy. Enshrined in Articles 13 – 16 of the final version, these “have now become a central element of international human rights law.” In many ways, argues Cohen, they “have laid the foundation for a growing ‘child participation’ movement,” bringing “beneficial effects around the world as children take more active roles in education, civics, and the media.” Indeed, says Cohen, “the most significant changes in the world view of children’s rights can be directly attributed to. . . the United States” and even that “United States participation. . . has resulted in an entirely new world for children.”
With such a ringing endorsement for the influence of the US on the furtherance of children's rights, does it seems reasonable to hope that Barack Obama's administration may after all be plotting to ratify the Convention?
[Sourced from The Legislative History of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (2007), OHCHR] Cohen, C. P., Role of the United States in Drafting the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Creating a New World for Children, 4 Loy. Poverty L.J. 9 (1998),Garman, J. J., International Law and Children’s Human Rights: International, Constitutional, and Political Conflicts Blocking Passage of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 41 Val. U. L. Rev. 659 (2006)] |
