Talk:Convention on the Rights of the Child

Initial comments

Map is incorrect. Canada has ratified the UNCRC. The US is the sole country which has not ratified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.221.90 (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.15.113.234 (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2005 (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.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.1.2.4 (talk • contribs) 22:34-:36, 18 November 2006

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsotrain09 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 8 April 2006

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

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.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.15.113.234 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 March 2005

• Facts can't be copyrighted.
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.48.68 (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2006
• But the way they are phrased can.
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsotrain09 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 8 April 2006
• _ _ 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)

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)

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)

Broken Link

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

Link to reference [32] is broken: http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/eilr/v20n1/SmolinCROP.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.78.90 (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

think I'm in favour of putting the list back in some form, basically I came here looking to find anything further on article 31 - nothing about any of the articles is currently in the 'article'

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989),

Article 31, recognizes ‘the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the

age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts.’

I was going to try to hyperlink to the relevant articles - are the terms above defined or not (rest doesn't seem to have a wikipedia definition distinct from leisure, if leisure, play and recreation are distinct)? would it be Original research to link to rest?

That bit is probably of interest to various wikiprojects on art or similar, I was wondering if some countries had/had not ratified that. I guess it's an 'all or nothing' apart from the extra clauses mentioned at the end of the article, (child soldiers etc).

Anyway not having the content in the article so you can't quickly find out what all the countries have agreed to makes the article less useful than I might have hoped. EdwardLane (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think you're confused - there is no "other way" to ratify a treaty. To be sure, the President can issue orders and Congress can make laws consistent with the treaty, but that doesn't even reach the level of a de-facto ratification, since neither federal orders or federal laws have the authority to override the individual states in many (if not all) of the areas covered by the treaty. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 15:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition, Clinton never submitted it to the Senate, so that is not factually accurate. He only signed it, in 1995. If the US ever became party, advice and consent of the Senate would be required. I don't think there is any plausible argument that the CRC could be treated as anything other than a "treaty" under U.S. law. Further, all other human rights treaties to which the US is a party (eg ICCPR, CERD, CRC Optional Protocols) have had advice and consent of the Senate prior to ratification by the President.Kbaumert 18:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ratification by the US of CRC

The USA has not ratified the CRC because in doing so, they would then be required to appear every 3 or 4 years? before the Committee on the Rights of the Child to explain why 25% of US children are living in poverty and why 40% don't have universal healthcare - insurance coverage .

Child poverty has been eliminated in many European countries and Australia ( effectively at below the 5% mark.)

Canada has still a 15-16% child poverty rate but currently has a "War on Poverty" nationally with a federal election looming possibly in the spring. The talk of a "guaranteed annual income" no matter what is back and very active. Canada's "National Child Supplement" is a form of that guaranteed income for children.

Canada has universal free health care for all of her citizens (obviously including the children)as a human right and some all provinces/territories have at least basic dental plan insurance for children living in poverty.

The USA would be very embarassed to be scrutinized by some meber of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child from some third world country. The USA also has a huge number of people in prison versus other countries, on a per capita basis.

Violent crime rates in most European countries and Australia are 1/10th that of the USA.

The revealing "Bowling for Columbine" documentary revealed that Canadians have 7,000,000 guns for a population of 33 million people and less than 1/19th the per capita muder rate. Same in France, The UK, Australia etc.

Canada has a hybrid of social systems which are part European and part American in content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samantha Dean (talk • contribs) 05:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

"The United States has officially become a State Party to the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography" on December 24, 2002. <url>http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/16216.htm</url>

I will edit the statement "Most member nation states (countries) of the United Nations have ratified it, either partly or completely" to reflect this. Raggz 00:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The following edit was deleted. It merely states the factual political facts regarding this treaty in the US. "The representatives of the People have decided not to enter into this treaty, and they may do so if they ever desire to do so. It may be that the Constitution of the United States is incompatible with Article 29, and if this is true, the Government of the United States lacks the authority to enter into this treaty unless the Constitution is amended first. If Congress ever were to accept this treaty, this decision would be reviewed by the Judicial Branch and would be invalidated if a conflict were found. There presently is no significant interest within Congress on this treaty. The US federal government (unlike almost all other nations) has limited authority regarding rights of children because the US Constitution makes such laws largely the province of state law." As such, it can all be supported by citations. Which specific parts are challenged as "political opinion"? The entire edit was reverted. If you challenge and discuss objections here, only then may they be addressed. Raggz 05:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This a good example of what others have been talking about. This is largely composed of hypothetical scenarios (discussing what "may be" or what "would happen"). This cannot, as you say, "all be supported by citations," mainly because it is whole bunch of "if this happens, then this would happen." The point is to present facts, not a series of maybes. Also, if it can be supported by citation (for example, the proposition that there is "presently no significant interest within Congress on this treaty) then add them! As it stands, it's just you saying this is true. I hope this helps. JCO312 01:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The article suggests that the US has not ratified this treaty. Five years ago the United States said "The United States has officially become a State Party to the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography at the United Nations today. The Senate unanimously provided its advice and consent to ratification and President Bush signed the instruments of ratification. This is another example of the commitment of the United States to working with the international community to end abuses and to recognize universal human rights norms. This protocol seeks to protect children from commercial sexual exploitation." Why has this been left out?

Suggested text: On December 24, 2002 the United States officially became a State Party to the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography". Raggz (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe we have tacit consensus to change this text since the US has partly ratified this treaty (see above). Raggz (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone deleted this change without discussion. Why? Raggz (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have three areas of concern about the article as it stands. Firstly, although it is supposed to be about a UN Convention, much of the detail, a disproportionate amount, appears to be about arguments within one of the two countries which has not ratified it. Nor does it present a global viewpoint, but a predominantly US one. It says, "the US is a sovereign nation"; yes, and so are all the countries which have signed it. This material is irrelevant to the article itself and if it belongs anywhere it ought to be forked off to an article about US ratification (with a brief summary on this page). Secondly, the discussion of US ratification is weighted towards opposition to ratification (and has no less than eight citations from David Smolin, non an especially notable figure in the area of children's rights). Thirdly, some of the arguments presented appear to be original research. It is fine to present the arguments of the Heritage Foundation, but some of the supporting comments are interpretations which need to be supported by a citation, not a reference to the original text. --Rbreen (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Convention and international law as an advisory resolution

The United Nations General Assembly agreed to adopt the Convention into international law as an advisory resolution on 1989-11-20. The United Nations Charter does not permit the General Assembly to create international law. All GA resolutions are advisory only. I retained "adopt the Convention into international law" anyway, because the treaty is international law for the signatories. The prior language erroneously suggested that the GA can pass laws. Raggz (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Expanding the citation base

There is a need to expand the citations. Only a few sources are used. I suggest that we do more research, so that new cites may replace or augment the few now used? Raggz (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Smolin cites

Michael Smolin is an authority worth citing, but his opinions are in most sections, and he is cited about ten times. I propose that his opinions be limited to one section. Raggz (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation is likewise represented more than is ideal. Unlike with Smolin, these are clustered together within a single section. I propose that additional sources be added, and that the opinions of the Heritage Foundation and Michael Smolin be limited to a single section. Raggz (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

World Vision

World Vision's homepage search did not reveal any support for CDAW. I did not delete this text, but instead left a fact tag. Raggz (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Small correction

Citations are to David Smolin.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sweetmoose. Raggz (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael is his father, an environmental and process engineer.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Citations

There is a lack of citations in this first paragraph from the controversy section. Some of this stuff, particularly the last sentence, is rather controversial. To state for a fact that the U.S. would be embarrassed is quite a statement. This must be cited or removed. I will remove the last sentence of this paragraph (at least) if it is not sourced soon.

Ratification of the UNCRC by the United States would require the U.S. governments to appear before the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, a panel of child rights experts from around the world, every 5 years to explain their implementation of such issues as universal health insurance for all American children, currently a human right in all other western industrialized nations. As of 2008, 25% of children in the U.S. don't have health insurance. Child poverty rates in America, the highest in the western industrialized nations, would have to be explained as well. Public examination of U.S. policies and direct comparison with those of other countries like the UK, France, Germany, Australia and Canada would prove embarassing internationally.

JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to remove the final two sentences from that paragraph. If somebody can adequately source theme, they can be re-added. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ratified by East Timor?

Mcintyre, A. (2005). Invisible stakeholders: children and war in Africa. Pretoria: Lesedi Litho Printers. Cited in Abatneh, 2006

The 2006 dissertation linked above says that East Timor ("Timor Leste") is yet to ratify the Convention. Is this still true? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is ratified by East Timor. Applerocks211201 (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Conflict with US law

I have removed the following section:

David Smolin argues that Article 29 limits the fundamental right right of parents and others to educate children in private school, by requiring that all such schools support the principles contained in the United Nations Charter and a list of specific values and ideals, and argues that "Supreme Court case law has provided that a combination of parental rights and religious liberties provide a broader right of parents and private schools to control the values and curriculum of private education free from State interference."

Firstly, we have too many citations from David Smolin in this article. He is not sufficiently notable in this context to give such undue weight to his opinions. Secondly, this reference is about the Convention supposedly limiting the rights of American parents, not about conflict with specific laws (as, for example the clear conflict between the convention and the laws allowing life imprisonment of juveniles. What laws on the US Statute book are in conflict with this? We must guard against purely speculative comments here.

There is altogether too much emphasis in this article on the opinions of opponents of the convention in a single country. If sufficent interest exists for an article on Opposition to US Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that material would be appropriate there. --Rbreen (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Smolin is an expert on US Constitutional law and international law, and a proponent of the Convention with a few reservations. The article he wrote about the Convention was published in the Emory Law Review and that is what is quoted here, so my question to you how is it irrelevant? It seems the deletion is more of an attempt to eliminate criticism.

If, as Smolin argues, the Convention conflicts with US Supreme Court precedent, then it conflicts with US law. That is a relevant argument and therefore relevant to the article primarily because it provides a basis for why the US has not adopted the Convention. Unless, as it appears, the article is written to make the US seem like idiots or naysayers for not adopting the Convention then it is relevant to the issue.

If you think there is too much criticism from authors in the US then find some people in other countries who criticize it. But you would think a majority of the criticism would come from the country or countries who have not adopted it. That is only logical.

The point should stay. It takes up very little space and is highly relevant to the substance of the article, unless of course this is a hit piece against the US. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To address your second point, about what laws it conflicts with, Supreme Court precedent, as you know is functionally the same as the US Constitution. When the Supreme Court creates a fundamental right the laws abriding that right are subject to strict scrutiny and very likely to be overturned.

The right of parents to dictate the upbringing of their child, send them to private school, or educate them at home can only be limited by the State in its imposition of educational standards that must be met, but not in the content that must be taught. The Convention seeks to regulate the content that must be taught by forcing institutions to support the United Nations charter and its ideals. Below is the basis for that fundamental right:

In Runyon v. McCrary the Court analyzed its prior rulings on educational choice:

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 , the Court held that the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes the right "to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children," id., at 399, and, concomitantly, the right to send one's children to a private school that offers specialized training - in that case, instruction in the German language. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 , the Court applied "the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska," id., at 534, to hold unconstitutional an Oregon law requiring the parent, guardian, or other person having custody of a child between 8 and 16 years of age [427 U.S. 160, 177] to send that child to public school on pain of criminal liability. The Court thought it "entirely plain that the [statute] unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." Id., at 534-535. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 , the Court stressed the limited scope of Pierce, pointing out that it lent "no support to the contention that parents may replace state educational requirements with their own idiosyncratic views of what knowledge a child needs to be a productive and happy member of society" but rather "held simply that while a State may posit [educational] standards, it may not pre-empt the educational process by requiring children to attend public schools." Id., at 239 (WHITE, J., concurring).

Sweetmoose6 (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism problem solved

Well it seems those who can't stand criticism of this convention have cleverly solved their problem by moving it all to a page dealing solely with the U.S.. I can really think of no other reason for the move and think the move was totally inappropriate. If there was another true reason for it I would like to hear it. Otherwise I am going to change it. I may not personally agree with any or all of the criticism but that doesn't mean it should be hidden or not dealt with. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not that criticism of the convention has been removed so much as that the previous version of this article was focused disproportionately on the theoretical debate with the United States about ratification of the Convention in that single country. This makes it seem as if discussion of the Convention is all about the United States. There is plenty of room for discussion, including criticism, of the operation of the Convention within those countries which have ratified it. The article is badly in need of specialist knowledge of the workings of the convention in practice, including criticism of its operation. --Rbreen (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Then let's add a controversy section that deals with it. I don't like attempts to whitewash this article. Article 29 does appear to seriously conflict with US Supreme Court precedent, which as I've stated is the equivalent of the US Constitution. And if the Convention does conflict, then the US needs to adopt the appropriate Reservations. Article 5 is also controversial because of what it says about the role of parents as basically advisors to their children. The younger the child, the obviously more controversial. Further it is clear the new US administration favors the Convention, therefore the legitimate criticisms are all the more important. I agree with you about expertise, but we can't ignore its flaws. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Sweetmoose. It's not helpful to suggest other editors "can't stand criticism of this convention". Personally, I welcome notable, well-sourced criticisms of the CRC but, as Rbreen says, the article was too focused on the US.

The main CRC article should present a global view, and not get bogged down in a long discussion of one country. After your last edit, the article was about 2700 words long, and the "United States" section accounted for around 1200 words of this. This is absurd. Do we really need two paragraphs discussing the American groups that think the US should join the CRC? Surely anyone who's interested in this stuff is capable of clicking on the link to US ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is prominently displayed under the "United States" heading?

I agree that any notable, well-sourced criticisms of the CRC should be kept in the main article, but they should not be dealt with under the heading "United States". General criticisms of the CRC belong in the main section of the article.

The US-specific stuff should be summarised in one or two paragraphs in the main article; anyone who wants more detailed information, like which Americans support and oppose the convention, can go the country-specific article.

If you think the article is missing important, well-sourced criticisms, let us know here on the discussion page. I don't think anyone here wants to stifle criticism of the convention. Polemarchus (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If I assumed too much, I apologize. I am obviously at the mercy of edit histories like everyone. What I am concerned about is the serious slant the article takes without the explanation. If potential conflicts with US law are not presented then it makes the US objection look purely political. I'm not saying there isn't some of that. but a conflict is a conflict. My other concerns are above. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt anyone here will object if you mention briefly that the US opposition to ratification is based partly on potential conflicts with the constitution, provided you cite a reliable, published source that explicitly says so. Personally, I think that one sentence about this should be enough: anyone who wants to know more can either read the US ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child article or go directly to the sources. Polemarchus (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does it have to be a blanket "conservative" disagreement? I could see some Libertarians disliking this as well. There's more than just Left and Right, you know.

See also

It seems to me that "Doubtful legal case of 47,800 VND" is an irrelevant link and I'm curious as to why that article even exists (and why it is being "promoted" here). --Darkpoet (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource errors

The text as shown at Wikisource is different from [2]. The Wikisource version [3] contains some strange things such as "The present Convention shall be open for signature by all States except Perth and W.A. in Guadeloupe." - what does this "except Perth and W.A. in Guadeloupe." mean? It is also missing from the other source. Alinor (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

List of participants

Why is there no full list of participants? 80.98.146.68 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It says every member of the United Nations except Somalia and the United States. Is that not good enough? Stuartyeates (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It says including. Which means that there can be other countries. I thought this is a statement about the UN, not the Convention itself. What about the non-UN countries? How many of them signed it? 80.98.146.68 (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Name one. Then add it, e.g. every member of the United Nations except Somalia and the United States, plus Ruritania. rewinn (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Australia's signature

I deleted the reference to the extreme-right-wing National Observer's criticism of Australia's signature of the CRC. Not sure why this reference is at all useful to understanding even the consequences of Australia's signature. If this criticism is to be retained, there needs to be, at the very least, a discussion of the way the CRC signature has played out in High Court cases such as Teoh (1995), and in State and Commonwealth legislation which has progressively incorporated the "best interests of the child" test since the 1990s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.142.242.137 (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Australia

Surely the stated date when Australia joined the Convention, 1950, is incorrect?

hilojo

Australia

Surely the stated date when Australia joined the Convention, 1950, is incorrect?

hilojo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilojo (talk • contribs) 00:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

195 States Party

The UN just officially announced that Somalia has become the 195th state party to ratify the Convention. All that remains now is for the Somalian government to deposit the instruments of ratification at the United Nations headquarters in New York [4]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That was the UNESCO, a UN agency, but not the depositary "DG of the UN". Let's keep it in until the weekend. If they haven't followed up by then, then I suggest we wait for the depository to take the formal action... L.tak (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it'll probably take at least a few days for the government to make the deposit. The official state parties will then read 195. Middayexpress (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The UN main service likewise just announced that there are now officially 195 nations party to the treaty [5]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That is consistent with my view of the matter "The ratification process will be finalized once the Government of Somalia deposits the instruments of ratification at UN Headquarters in New York.". I hope they manage in the next 2 days; and in view of the attention they just might... L.tak (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No prob. Middayexpress (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It was too early indeed it seems. The instrument of ratification has as of today not yet been deposited (could be days.... could be months until they do so). Let's hope the hurry a bit! Until then I have restored the formal (194 parties) situation. L.tak (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw one once (not for this treaty but another UN treaty) where the deposit date was about two years after the legal ratification at home. I guess sometimes papers go missing ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Somalia has ratified the convention. There are several organisations who have declared that. The changes made were simply incorrect. I noticed immediately that it stated South Sudan and Somalia began the process of ratifying the convention. I have yet to find one press release by any UN related organisations stating South Sudan has ratified or signed the convention. There has been a variety of press release stating that Somalia has become the 195th and signed the convention.

If Somalia was not the 195th member and was still in the process, then the UN and all UN related agencies have failed miserably in the English language.

Here are the sources:

1) http://www.unicef.org/somalia/reallives_16043.html

2) https://www.facebook.com/unicef?app_data=%7B%22organization_id%22%3A710%2C%22referring_action_id%22%3A6114%2C%22fb_referrer_uid%22%3Anull%2C%22source%22%3Anull%7D&v=app_335652843138116

3) http://www.unicef.org/media/media_78732.html

4) http://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/somalia-ratification-un-convention-rights-child-breakthrough

5) http://www.raxanreeb.com/2015/01/somalia-somali-president-signs-the-convention-of-the-right-of-the-child/

6) https://www.crin.org/en/library/news-archive/somalia-government-ratifies-un-convention-rights-child

7) https://www.flickr.com/photos/unsom/sets/72157649979419448/

On top of that, there are several UN twitter accounts, all verified who have stated that Somalia has ratified the convention. This is direct from the UN's own verified twitter account with 3.4 million followers - https://twitter.com/UNICEF/status/557640588301189121

All of those links quite clearly state it has been ratified. It uses the word 'ratified' and 'ratifies' and does not state that Somalia is in the process of ratification. That process started last year. I did ask one UN individual on twitter whether a deposit of instrument statement will be released and they said I doubt that. Which made me wonder, can anyone find me a source to all 194 other countries having deposited at the UN? I can find sources that states they signed it and its ratified, but nothing about the deposit.

Furthermore, here is the speech by Mr Nick Kay, Special Representative for the Secretary General on the signing of the convention. http://www.unicef.org/somalia/SOM_statement_presidentspeechratification.pdf

I think the person who made the changes put far too much importance on the deposit instruments of ratification. The United Nations, UNICEF and all other UN related agencies announced Somalia as the 195th member of the convention in their statements on their website, Facebook and Twitter accounts. Hollyfield25 (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is a bit confusing indeed. They say they ratified, but then in the first link provided it is said that the "ratification process will be completed with the deposit of the instrument". The latter is what we are eagerly waiting for, and which according to the depositary site (https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en) has not yet happened. So the term ratification is used in many forms, but you can not have a ratification, while at the same time saying that it still needs to be completed... Let me also add, that in the convention it is said that instruments need to be deposited with the depositary (hence its name). So that is the source. They did therefore all deposit or they wouldn't be registered... If you go to https://treaties.un.org/, then click "depositary notifications", then click "search CNs", and then select treaty "IV-11" and data rage 01-01-1989 - 30-01-2015, you'll see all notifications. L.tak (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC):

Thank you for the quick reply. I see your point. I have emailed the treaty office and should expect a response in the next 2 weeks. I'm more than happy to keep it at 194 states. However I do have a slight issue with the wording.

This is your edit:

- "Somalia has finished its ratification process, but did not deposit the instrument of ratification"

This is the new edit I made:

- "On the 20th January 2015, Somalia ratified the convention and the process will be finalized once the Government of Somalia deposits the instruments of ratification at UN Headquarters in New York."

As you can see, that edit is more in line with the UN statement. Which can be found here - http://www.unicef.org/somalia/media_16037.html Your initial edit implies that there was a deadline and the government of Somalia had missed that deadline, thus they chose not deposit the instrument of ratification. Hollyfield25 (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; let's leave it at that then and hope Somalia will become a party to the treaty soon! There is indeed no deadline; but at the same time there is also no guarantee that Somalia will follow through and eventually become a party to the treaty, so we shouldn't suggest the deposit is imminent... L.tak (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. UN received Somalia's ratification papers on 1 Oct 2015: [6]. 196 parties now, just the US is non-party. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Convention on the Rights of the Child. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211151110/https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211151110/https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304080857/http://labour.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/Divisions/childlabour/Census-2001&2011.pdf to http://labour.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/Divisions/childlabour/Census-2001%262011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825214748/http://treaties.un.org:80/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11-d&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11-d&chapter=4&lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211151110/https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Convention on the Rights of the Child. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://labour.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/Divisions/childlabour/Census-2001%262011.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eu2009.cz/cz/news-and-documents/cfsp-statements/%2Akopie-1%3A-eu-presidency-statement-on-the-execution-of-delara-darabi-by-stoning--19876/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://iranwpd.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3066%3Airan-changes-law-for-execution-of-juveniles&Itemid=64
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.law.emory.edu/cms/site/fileadmin/journals/eilr/v20n1/SmolinCROP.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211012036/http://debate.waldenu.edu/video/question-12/ to http://debate.waldenu.edu/video/question-12/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11-d&chapter=4&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Convention on the Rights of the Child. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222202845/http://www.amnestyusa.org/children/crn_faq.html to http://www.amnestyusa.org/children/crn_faq.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211151110/https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en to https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211151110/https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en to https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211151110/https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en to https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Should the Miller vs Alabama ruling on juvenile life imprisonment be mentioned like it is?

The Supreme Court ruling only applied to mandatory life without parole for juveniles, but still allowed for JLWOP in some instances. http://www.cumberlandtrialjournal.com/life-after-miller-retroactive-sentencing-and-the-rare-juvenile/

On the flipside, the Convention bans JLWOP entirely. The US is still in contravention of the Convention.Bjoh249 (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

United Kingdom

This cant be right now: The UK Government responded that "the use of physical punishment is a matter for individual parents to decide". May be right in 1992, but not now. Any sort of physical punishment of children is the uk is now illegal, except for reasonable punishment. It Scotland it is completely illegal now to hit a child. Wales seems to be going to same. scope_creep (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Canada & Baker

I dispute that Canada has ratified this treaty. Despite the comments of a random ministry, the judiciary maintains supremacy over the executive in Canada through judicial review, and the judiciary recognizes the legislative branch as the only branch of government that can make the Convention law. Read Baker at paragraph 69 (not a joke). Just do ctrl + f "69" to see the relevant paragraph.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii699/1999canlii699.html Mevvy00 (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Alarics read the paragraph that I'm citing from Baker. The highest legal authority in Canada explicitly states that it only interprets as law what has been passed by parliament. 2/3 branches of government say the treaty is not ratified, while (at max (because the source this article relies on for Canada's ratification of this treaty is a random ministry, not even the whole of the executive)) only 1/3 says it is ratified. Mevvy00 (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

User:112.206.242.227 Read my source. Mevvy00 (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The official view of Global Affairs Canada, as seen at this link: https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=102790&t=638567466011145874, is that the treaty is ratified in Canada. Just because the treaty has not been explicitly incorporated domestically does not change the fact that it is ratified in an international law sense. Looking at Senate testimony, it appears the position of the Canadian Government is that existing Canadian law, with appropriate regulations, policies, and guidance issued by departments and agencies, would be sufficient to execute the treaty. And ultimately, the Crown has the ultimate prerogative to declare a treaty ratified.

Bringing in @Alarics too in the interests of bringing all interested users together. JustAnotherEditHere (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The document does not question the ratification of the convention, but merely discusses its applicability under Canadian law. However, the graphic only deals with ratification, not with related issues. I am therefore restoring the old status. --Zinnmann (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Map Inconsistent?

• The map shows Canada is a signatory, but has not ratified. The article says Canada ratified it in 1991.
• The map shows Guernsey as a non-signatory, but the article says "Guernsey was also excluded until 2020".
• The map has Western Sahara in gray, but gray is not one of the colors in the key.
• The map also has Taiwan in gray. The article says "Taiwan incorporated the convention into domestic law on 20 November 2014, and signed an Instrument of Accession to the CRC on 16 May 2016."

SlowJog (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I had reverted the map to show Canada as having ratified, after User:Mevvy00 changed it, but he or she has reverted my revert, see section "Canada & Baker" immediately above. I don't want to get into an edit war. Someone more familiar with Canadian constitutional affairs needs to deal with the argument raised by User:Mevvy00. -- Alarics (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Useful source

I recently added content about South Korea by using this source published by Yale University. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page there appears to be a drop-down menu showing analysis of other countries. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)