Children's Rights
Convention on the Rights of the Child
Frequently Asked Questions
Q:
What is the the Convention on the Rights of the Child?
A:
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is an internationally recognized
agreement between nations which establishes a comprehensive set of goals for
individual nations to achieve on behalf of their children.
- In general, the Convention calls for:
- Freedom from violence, abuse, hazardous employment, exploitation, abduction or sale
- Adequate nutrition
- Free compulsory primary education
- Adequate health care
- Equal treatment regardless of gender, race, or cultural background
- The right to express opinions and freedom of though in matters affecting them
- Safe exposure/access to leisure, play, culture, and art.
Recognizing the special vulnerability of children, all of these goals are
expressed with respect to a child's age and evolving capacities
- the child's best interests are always the paramount concern. The Convention
repeatedly emphasizes the primacy and importance of the role,
authority and responsibility of parents and family; it is neutral on abortion;
and is consistent with the principles contained in the Bill of Rights.
Q:
What is the Convention's status in the United States and globally?
A:
As of February 24, 1997, 190 countries have ratified the Convention. The most
recent nations to become States Parties to the Convention are Oman, the United
Arab Emirates, and Switzerland.
The Cook Islands -- which recently ratified the Convention on the national
level -- is projected to formally ratify the treaty and submit its instrument
of ratification within the next couple of months. The remaining two countries
which have not ratified the Convention are Somalia and the United States.
Markedly, Somalia currently does not have the governmental capacity to ratify
an international treaty at this time.
On February 16, 1995, the United States signed the Convention indicating the
nation's intent to consider ratification. The next step is for the President
and his advisors to draft a Statement of Reservations, Understandings and
Declarations which will be presented with the Convention to the Senate for
its "advice and consent." Once Senate consideration is completed in the affirmative,
the President will ratify the Convention. As of April 1, 1997, the Convention
has not been presented to the Senate.
Q: Why hasn't the
United States ratified the Convention: What is holding it up?
A:
International treaties undergo extensive examination and scrutiny before they
are ratified in the United States. Unfortunately, it can take several years
for a treaty to be ratified after it is signed. For example, the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide took more than 30
years to be ratified by 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. Signed by the U.S. just over
two years ago, the Convention on the Rights of the Child is relatively early
in this process.
Unlike many nations which view implementation of a treaty as a gradual or
progressive process, the United States attempts to ensure that all federal
and/or state laws meet the standards of the treaty and, if necessary, enact
new legislation before giving its consent. This is because the United States
takes the position that the text of a human rights treaty itself
does not directly become part of U.S. law. This process can
take years.
Two "environmental" factors have created obstacles to moving the CRC ahead
expeditiously. Due to widespread misconceptions about the Convention's intent
and provisions, and a lack of public understanding about how this type of
agreement is implemented by our government, the Convention has encountered
a notable level of opposition within the Senate and in the public. Until a
more favorable political environment can be achieved and greater public support
can be attained, further movement on ratification will be difficult.
Q:
What are the most common claims made about the Convention by its opposition?
A:
Conservative religious organizations including 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, and the Rutherford
Institute have spearheaded the efforts in opposition to the Convention.
These organizations have made a significant effort to portray the Convention
as a threat. The majority of the oppositions claims stem from unfounded concerns
related to national sovereignty, states' rights, and the parent-child relationship.
The most common unfounded concerns voiced by the opposition include:
The Convention usurps national and state sovereignty
The Convention undermines parental authority
The Convention would allow and encourage children to sue parents, join gangs, have abortions,
The United Nations would dictate how we raise and teach our children
These claims and perceptions are a result of misconceptions, erroneous information, and a lack of understanding about how international human rights treaties are implemented in the United States. Notably, in many cases, the Convention's opponents criticize provisions which were added by the Reagan and Bush Administrations during the drafting process in an effort to reflect the rights American children have under the U.S. Constitution.
These public efforts are reinforced by a number of Senators which oppose
ratification of the Convention. Opposition in the Senate is led by Senator
Jesse Helms (R-NC). Citing his opinion that "the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child is incompatible with God-given right and responsibility
of parents to raise their children," and that "the Convention has
the potential to severely restrict States and the Federal Government in their
efforts to protect children and to enhance family life," Senator Helms,
along with 26 cosponsors, introduced a Senate Resolution in June 1995 which
urged the President to not transmit the Convention to the Foreign Relations
Committee (which Helms Chairs) for review. It must be noted, however, that
since 1990, five resolutions have also been introduced in Congress which support
U.S. ratification of the Convention.
Q:
Does the Convention threaten our national sovereignty? Will the United Nations
control our laws and children?
A: No. The Convention
contains no controlling language or mandates. Moreover, under the supremacy
clause of our Constitution, no treaty can "override" our Constitution.
The United States has historically regarded treaties such as this Convention
to be non-self-executing, which means the Convention can only be implemented
through domestic legislation enacted by Congress or state legislatures, in a
manner and time-frame determined by our own legislative process. Moreover, the
United States can reject or attach clarifying language to any specific provision
of the Convention.
Therefore, neither the United Nations nor the Committee on the Rights of the Child would have dominion, power, or enforcement authority over the United States or its citizens. Ultimately, the Convention obligates the Federal Government to make sure that the provisions of the treaty are fulfilled.
Source: UNICEF