Talk:Convention on the Rights of the Child

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.


The US has signed, but not ratified the CRC and the Optional Protocal on child soldiers. I wonder why they haven't "ratified" it.

They did this with Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), too.

But they have no intention to do so: Kyoto Protocol Article on Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.15.113.234 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 5 March 2005 (UTC) (who inserted within another ed's signed contrib.)

What's up with this "signing but not ratifying" thing?

I also heard the US is nearly the only holdout against a treaty banning land mines.

Is the US wickedly hypocritical, or are there some defects in these treaties, or what?
-- Ed Poor 07:27 & 07:53, 29 March 2002


As to the child treaty: conservatives are concerned that the treaty gives too many rights to children that (in their view) properly belong to parents. I think a summary of the main provisions of the convention would be nice.
About landmines: the US uses them in Korea and does not want to limit its options. They have said they will sign once they have developed alternatives. US, Russia, China are the major producers of landmines, and all three have refused to sign.
This struck-thru 'graph & the sig of AxelBoldt 07:32, 29 March 2002, were separated from the previous one by intervening contribs by Rast and others; they both appear in their original form, further down the section.
Generally speaking, those opposed to the CRC believe that under the CRC a 14-y old child would have the right to have sex, get an abortion, join the Wiccan church, etc, regardless of her parent's wishes, and by ratifying the CRC, the US government would be commited to upholding those "rights" when parents attempt to deny them. Supporters of the CRC claim that the CRC does no such thing and in fact strengthens parental rights. But the opposition claim the supporters are lying.
Also, CRC opponents feel that the US does not need the UN telling it what to do, because even without the CRC, the democratically elected US government is perfectly capable of making whatever laws are needed to protect US children.
This article is rather overwhelmingly positive, and would be improved by a section explaining the negatives of the CRC (it's toothless) and American opposition to it.
--Rast 00:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


Other issues with the treaty:
Under Article 13, any attempts to prevent their children from interacting with material parents deem unacceptable is forbidden. Children are vested with a “freedom of expression” right, which is virtually absolute. No allowance is made for parental guidance. Section 1 declares a child’s right to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.”
In Article 14, children are guaranteed “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” Children have a legal right to object to all religious training. Alternatively, children may assert their right against parental objection to participate in any religion that may be objectionable by the family, such as the occult.
Article 15 declares “the right of the child to freedom of association.” Parents could be prevented from forbidding their child to associate with people deemed to be objectionable companions. Under Article 15, children could claim a “fundamental” right to join gangs, cults, and racist organizations over parental objection.
Article 19 mandates the creation of an intensive bureaucracy for the purpose of “identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment, and follow-up” of parents who, in violation of the child’s rights, treat their children negligently.
To insure State and U.N. control over their development, Article 7 requires all children must be immediately registered at birth.
Articles 3, 19, 37 require all ratifying countries to protect children from “degrading punishment” and “physical violence” which includes corporal punishment. The U.N. Committee of Ten (pursuant to Article 44) must oversee the implementation of the treaty. Over the last several years, the Committee published reports criticizing several countries (including Canada and Great Britain) for allowing corporal punishment to continue.
One big difference between the US and other countries is if a treaty is ratified here, it becomes the highest law of the land, only subserviant to the Constitution. Under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause of Article VI Section.2, “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution of laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” In Missouri v. Holland, (252 U.S. 416), the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the Supremacy Clause a treaty made by the President, with concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate present at the time of voting, would become the supreme law and take precedent over contrary state laws. Thus, the U.N. Convention would constitute legally binding law in all 50 states. Otherwise valid state laws pertaining to education, the family, etc., which conflict with the provisions of the treaty will be subject to invalidation. Were this convention to be ratified, the United States would be required to alter large portions of long established law to cater to the demands of the United Nations.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.1.2.4 (talk • contribs) 22:34-:36, 18 November 2006 (edit) (undo)
 (UTC)
About landmines: the US uses them in Korea and does not want to limit its options. They have said they will sign once they have developed alternatives. US, Russia, China are the major producers of landmines, and all three have refused to sign. AxelBoldt 07:32, 29 March 2002
The U.S. may very well be wickedly hypocritical, but that is not what is behind the "signing but not ratifying" phenomenon. The cause of this is that signing and ratifying are done by different people with different responsibilities. Signing is a symbolic thing and a statement of intent. It is done by the executive branch (that is, the U.S. President, or someone to whom he delegates authority). Ratifying is a more binding legislative act that requires the approval of Congress. And Congress is under no obligation to agree with the President. Congressional refusal to ratify a signed treaty may be a serious problem, but I don't think we can call it "wickedly hypocritical". Are there defects in these treaties? A majority in Congress apparently think so (or think their constituents think so). — Nowhither 09:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


The main US opposition I've heard about concerns the age of eligibility for military service. The military currently allows 17-year-olds to enlist with parent/guardian written permission, but the CRC would prohibit the practice altogether. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fsotrain09 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It says that 192 member states ratified the convention, aren't there only 191 countries in the UN? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.72.227.3 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Copyright Violation

I saw a copyright violation.

Wikipedia: Only Somalia and the United States have not ratified the CRC. Somalia is currently unable to proceed to ratification as it has no recognized government.

The United States, by signing the Convention, has signaled its intention to ratify – but has yet to do so. The United States undertakes an extensive examination and scrutiny of treaties before proceeding to ratify. This examination, which includes an evaluation of the degree of compatibility with existing law and practice in the country at state and federal levels, can take several years – or even longer if the treaty is portrayed as being controversial or if the process is politicized. In particular, the practice in several U.S. states of executing persons between the ages of 16 and 18 is a major barrier to the USA's ratification of the Convention. However, a 2005 Supreme Court decision made this illegal.

UNICEF Site: "Only two countries, Somalia and the United States, have not ratified this celebrated agreement. Somalia is currently unable to proceed to ratification as it has no recognized government. By signing the Convention, the United States has signalled its intention to ratify – but has yet to do so.

As in many other nations, the United States undertakes an extensive examination and scrutiny of treaties before proceeding to ratify. This examination, which includes an evaluation of the degree of compliance with existing law and practice in the country at state and federal levels, can take several years – or even longer if the treaty is portrayed as being controversial or if the process is politicized. For example, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide took more than 30 years to be ratified in the United States and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which was signed by the United States 17 years ago, still has not been ratified. Moreover, the US Government typically will consider only one human rights treaty at a time. Currently, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is cited as the nation's top priority among human rights treaties. "

There are some differences, but almost all of the passage is the same on both.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.15.113.234 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 March 2005 (UTC)

  • Facts can't be copyrighted.
    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.43.48.68 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But the way they are phrased can.
    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fsotrain09 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • _ _ The verbatim uses of the following phrasings:
Only Somalia and the United States have not ratified...
Somalia is currently unable to proceed to ratification as it has no recognized government.
The United States undertakes an extensive examination and scrutiny of treaties before proceeding to ratify. This examination, which includes an evaluation of the degree of compatibility with existing law and practice in the country at state and federal levels, can take several years – or even longer if the treaty is portrayed as being controversial or if the process is politicized.
are violations. (Well, unless we can establish that the author, or the entity for whom they wrote it as a work for hire, executed the GFDL or placed it in the public domain. But even finding a statement at the source to that effect would suffice to do more than make it likely, since anyone can copy it from an earlier source and lie about that.)
_ _ I'm tagging and removing them.
--Jerzy•t 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Supreme Court and the Convention

Dropped this about the Roper decision and the US ratification:

However, recent changes in the court, including the new Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, and the vacancy created by the departure of[ asscoiate justice Sandra Day O'Connor, both of whom are appointed by president George Bush, a pro-death penalty conservative, indicate that this decision may likely be overturned in the near future.

This makes no sense. The Roper decision was 5-4. Both Rehnquist and O'Connor were on the dissenting side. Even assuming that the two new justices take the same position as the their predecessors, the votes are not there to overturn Roper. Ellsworth 21:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Key Issues Inconsistencies

The items in this list are very inconsitent in their use of second vs. third person i.e. "They" and "Children" vs. "You". I believe third person would be more appropriate, but second person is used in the external link that it is based on. The main thing is it needs to be consistent.
socalifornia 18:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Consistency within the article is indeed mandatory. But the main thing is that 2nd person is unencyclopedic, and every edit that adds to consistency within the article by introducing more 2nd person is a bad edit. NPoV implies that the purpose of an article is to communicate facts, and choosing language features whose purpose is to prepare the reader to apply it to their personal situation is implicitly taking the position that their doing so is good, besides interferes with the factual communication (starting with the fact that what is said applies to the rest of the world as well as the reader).
--Jerzy•t 21:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Link

just thought i'd mention--broken link at the bottom of the page.Nothingisreal 23:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Key issues section - too listy?

I'm concerned that the key issues section may be too listy for inclusion - the article iself is not a list. Therefore I'm removing the section to talk. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 01:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Key Issues

Many major issues are covered in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the related Articles [1]:

  • Protection without discrimination (Article 2)
  • All decisions made about children must be in their best interest (Article 3)
  • All young people have "evolving capacities" which must be acknowledged (Article 5)
  • Children have the right to life (Article 6)
  • They have a right to a name and the right to acquire a nationality (Article 7)
  • They have a right to know about their identity (Article 8)
  • They cannot be separated from their parents against their will, except when judged to be in their best interests (Article 9)
  • If a child is capable of forming his or her own views, they also have the right to express those views(Article 12)
  • Children have the right to freedom of expression and information if it is within legal boundaries (Article 13)
  • They have the right to thought, conscience and religion (Article 14)
  • Their rights are protected so no one can interfere with their privacy, family or home (Article 16)
  • Through the use of media children have the right to obtain information that will benefit them (Article 17)
  • The primary responsibility for the upbringing of children lies with their parents or legal guardians (Article 18)
  • Children are to be protected from neglect and abuse (Article 19)
  • Children who are refugees have the right to special assistance and protection (Article 22)
  • Disabled children have the right to special care (Article 23)
  • Children have the right to health services and to have the highest attainable standard of health (Article 24)
  • Children have the right to benefit from social security (Article 26)
  • They have the right to an adequate standard of living (Article 27)
  • They have the right to have access to education (Article 28)
  • If a child is a member of an indigenous or minority group he or she has the right to practice their own religion and culture (Article 30)
  • They have the right to take part in leisure, recreation and cultural activities (Article 31)
  • Children should be protected from economic exploitation (Article 32)
  • They should be protected from illicit drugs (Article 33)
  • They should be protected from sexual exploitation and abuse (Article 34)
  • They have the right to be protected from abduction, sale or trafficking and all other forms of exploitation (Article 35 and 36)
  • Children are not to be subjected to torture, capital punishment or deprivation of liberty (Article 37)
  • If children have faced neglect or abuse etc. the State has the responsibility to take all appropriate measures for rehabilitative care (Article 39)
  • Children have numerous rights in regard to the administration of justice and the criminal procedure (Article 40)

[edit] US Senate ratification

Article says "However, the United States Constitution requires that treaties receive the approval of two-thirds of the Senate". That's a very confusing statement, if you read what Treaty#United_States_law and Foreign_policy_law_of_the_United_States. In short: "treaty" under US constitutional law means something different than what it does under international law. So, although this is a treaty under international law, the US President could have chosen (and maybe even still could choose) to not treat it as a treaty under US constitutional law, and thus ratify it by a different method than the 2/3-rd Senate majority method (the congressional-executive method or the sole executive method.) This is a very murky legal area, but I would venture that a simple answer is that the article doesn't need to comment on this; it can just say "President Clinton chose to submit the treaty to Senate for ratification by a two-thirds majority", which is entirely true, and avoids the issue of whether he could have ratified it another way. --SJK 08:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Talk%7EConvention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child_8cfd.html"