essay on the rights of a child

EssayBanyan.com – Collections of Essay for Students of all Class in English

Essay on Child Rights

We live in a society. When people have built a society, they made rules and laws for that society. Some laws and rules are made by the government, while others are made by the people who live in the country. This includes laws that are necessary for the healthy survival of humans. We have some rights that help us to live peacefully. Similarly, there are also some rights for children which are referred to as child rights. Today, we will discuss Child Rights in detail.

Short and Long Child Rights Essay in English

Here, we are presenting short and long short essays on Child Rights in English for students under word limits of 100 – 150 Words, 200 – 250 words, and 500 – 600 words. This topic is useful for students of classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 in English. These provided essays on Child Rights will help you to write effective essays, paragraphs, and speeches on this topic.

Child Rights Essay 10 Lines (100 – 150 Words)

1) Children have some basic human rights as adults which are referred to as child rights.

2) Every child has rights, irrespective of their age, race, gender, or where they were born.

3) Child rights are important for the physical and mental growth of children.

4) Rights to education, rights to survival, right health, etc are some child rights.

5) Child rights are essential to set up a good environment for children.

6) It is also important for the development of the nation.

7) In 1989, the United Nations Convention on Child Rights was passed.

8) Children are human beings who should have their rights.

9) Child rights are important to save children from exploitation.

10) We should protect child’s rights and fight issues like child labor and harassment.

Short Essay on Child Rights (250 – 300 Words)

Introduction

Even though there has been a lot of progress in the last few decades, millions of children still don’t have their basic rights. Terms like child labor, and harassment is getting common these days. Children also have the right to extra protection because they are more likely to be used or abused.

What is meant by Child Rights?

Child rights are the fundamental rights that are provided to every child for their proper growth and development. Children have the right to be with their parents and to have a human identity. They also have the right to physical protection, food, education, health care, and criminal laws that are right for their living. Children also have the right to equal protection of their civil rights and to not be treated differently because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, or color.

Need for Child Rights

When children’s rights are protected, they have a much better chance of growing up in society. During a war, a lot of children are hurt in big ways. Most of the time, children have to work in places that are very dangerous and unhealthy. They end up not being able to read or write, and they don’t have any skills. Because of this, they become criminals. These rights will protect them from the different kinds of abuse they might face in their lives.

Child rights are the human rights of children, with a focus on their rights to safety and opportunity. Like adults, they too have a life. People should follow the rules and care for child rights.

Long Essay on Child Rights (500 Words)

Every child deserves to have a full childhood, where they are cared for by their families and communities. They need an environment safe from violence, that gives them the chance to grow and do well like other kids. Surrounding majorly affects a child’s health and development. India has more than a billion people, and more than millions of them are children. It has more children than any other country. They are an important part of society. Like other humans, they also need some basic rights to live peacefully.

History of Child Rights

After World War I, the League of Nations, which would later become the UN, wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It included the rights to life, food, shelter, education, freedom of speech and religion, justice, and peace. In 1959, the “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child” tried for the first time to make sure that children were safe from abuse. It came up with 10 principles. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was made in 1989, and many countries have signed it. This convention gives children a lot of different rights. This UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is very important for making sure children’s rights are respected.

Importance of Child Rights

Children are the world’s future. They are the ones who will be able to help the country grow and improve. So, it is important to protect the rights of every child. In many places, children have to deal with dirty places to live, bad health care, lack of safe water and housing, and damage to the environment. Because of all these things, children are left on the streets and don’t have a good place to live. They are the most vulnerable resource in the world. They can reach their fullest potential in a safe environment where children’s rights are respected. Therefore, they should have the right to a good education, good health, and good food.

What are Child Rights

The Convention on the Rights of the Child says that child rights are part of international law. It says that all children should be treated in a fair, equal, and dignified way. The UN General Assembly has made these rights universal claims, which means that anyone who discriminates against or hurts a child can be punished.

Some fundamental child rights are listed below:

Right to Education
Right to Survival
Right to Participation
Right to Development
Right to Health
Right to Protected from Violence
Right to a Family Life
Right to an Opinion
Right to be protected from Exploitation

Every child has a right to live on this Earth. Government has to make sure that children can use the rights they have. Moreover, we should also make sure that we do everything we can to protect the most vulnerable people in our communities. We can keep them safe from harm, child labor, and war. We can help them build a better future for themselves and for the upcoming generations.

I hope the above provided essays on Child Rights will be helpful in understanding the importance of child rights and the need to protect them.

FAQs: Frequently Asked Questions on Child Rights

Ans. Every year on 20 November, Child Rights Day is celebrated in India.

Ans. The United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as any person under the age of 18.

Ans. World Children’s Day is celebrated on 20 November every year.

Ans. There are many challenges to child rights like poverty, culture, environment, neglectful family, etc.

Essay on digital india, cashless india essay, essay on child is father of the man, essay on causes, effects and prevention of corona virus, essay on dr. sarvepalli radhakrishnan, durga puja essay, essay on summer vacation, essay on my plans for summer vacation, essay on holiday.

India’s Largest Career Transformation Portal

Essay on Child Rights for Students in English [500+ Words]

January 3, 2021 by Sandeep

Essay on Child Rights: The sound development of a child in terms of physical, mental, emotional and social growth is the essential right of every child. Children can express their claim to these rights without any hesitation. Right to education is also a fundamental right, and these factors have been placed on world agenda tables. The UN General Assembly has adopted these rights as universal claims, and any form of discrimination/ violence against children can attract penal action against offenders.

Essay on Child Rights 500 Words in English

Below we have provided Child Rights Essay in English, suitable for class 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10.

Child rights are the sub-category of human rights catering, especially to the children in terms of their health, education, recreation, family, etc. It also highlights their development and age-appropriate needs that change a passage of time. Three general principles foster all children’s rights,

Non-discrimination – under this, every child is treated equally and has a right to strengthen their potential at all times. For instance, every child will gain access to education irrespective of its gender, nationality, caste, disability or another status.

Opinion of the child – the child wants to be heard and understood; that’s why the voice of the children is pivotal in their overall development. For example, the parents or the elders of the house should take into consideration their children’s needs before making decisions that will further cause damage.

Right to inclusive education – A child with a disability should receive equal access to training and development without being neglected.

United Nation Convention has listed the below rights for the children who come under the age of 18. These rights embody the freedom of children, favourable family environment, leisure, education, health care and cultural activities.

Right to Survival

Right to live with respect.
Right to be born.
Right to have access to basic food, clothing and shelter.

Right to Protection

Right to be protected from violence.
Right to be protected from drugs.
Right to be protected from exploitation.
Right to be protected from abandon.

Right to Participation

Right to freedom of voice.
Right to freedom of expression.
Right to freedom to form an association.
Right to information.

Right to Development

Right to learn and explore.
Right to rest and play.
Right to seek education.
Right to overall development-emotional, physical and psychological.

Significance of Children’s Rights

Children’s are not a commodity or an item to be owned by the parents or the society, but an individual who possesses equal status as a member of the human race. They have their likes and dislikes, which assists them to harness their energy for future growth. Parents can love, care and nurture children through guidance and advice gradually. They need to be thrust towards independence continuously. The sense of accountability needs to be developed by providing necessary tasks so that they realize their value and voice.

The course of their progress determines the future of the children and the country as a whole. The devastating changes like climate change, globalisation, the disintegration of the family, mass migration, etc. affects children to a massive level crippling their identity and social welfare. In situations like armed conflict and other national emergencies, the conditions worsen. Children are vulnerable and susceptible to health risks. The repercussions of disease, malnutrition and poverty endanger their future potential.

They fall prey to sordid living conditions, poor health-care, lack of safe water and housing and environmental damage. Because of all these reasons, children are deprived of the proper home as they are left on the streets. Not only the government but also the citizens of the nation should take charge of enhancing their requirements and taking an initiative to bring change. It is paramount to show respect and appreciation towards children as it helps them to develop healthy mentally. By doing so, their personality is not disabled, and they feel part of society.

10 Lines on Child Rights

The declaration of Child’s Right was established in the year 1924.
The rights were formulated by saving the children founder, Eglantyne Jebb.
The most important rights are- survival, developmental, protection and participation rights.
It is an extension of human rights, especially for children below 18 years of age.
These rights emphasize on the age-appropriate needs.
The violation of the rights includes violence, poverty, and discrimination.
The United Nation Convention has further elaborated the rights for better understanding and knowledge.
Through these rights, the government is encouraging people to contribute through donations, adoption and sponsorship.
Also, these rights stress on having their opinion and say in every decision taken for their betterment.
The government, through its efforts, is urging people to be vigilant around what is happening and report if there is any violation regarding the rights of the children.

75 Children’s Rights Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best children’s rights topic ideas & essay examples, 💡 interesting topics to write about children’s rights, 📌 simple & easy children’s rights essay titles.

Child Protection in the UK The development of the child protection system in the United Kingdom has been distorted by two factors namely; the impact of media reporting and the way in which celebrated child abuse tragedies have been handled.
Children’s Rights Concept The implication is that cultural variation a round sex and sexuality can be integrated into the United Nations conventions on the rights of a child by the introduction of universal sexuality education to all nations. We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts 808 writers online Learn More
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and the Children’s Internet Another negative aspect that raises opposition to COPPA and CIPA is the impossibility of controlling children in places other than home or a school library.
Criminal Law: Child Protection from Pornography and Labor There is a need for the involvement of the community and organization of goodwill, in the alleviation of poverty and suffering of children.
Child Labour and Rights in the United Kingdom From child labor to child abuse, there are certainly different government and non-government agencies all over the world that support and are keenly watching the child’s rights and protection programs of every country. The cases […]
Children Rights: Conceptual and Philosophical Consideration Most of the nations – except the United States – are bound by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Children’s Rights Protection and Recent Developments In such institutions, the observance of children’s rights is the main task and goal. Thus, a thorough study of this problem is necessary to improve the situation in the country.
Children’s Rights and Related Frameworks According to the Act, the commissioner for children and young people in Scotland is allowed to investigate the cases concerning the wellness of children.
Importance of Reading for Child’s Right Future Life It is imperative to engage in a child’s upbringing from childhood to strive to make their life happy. It is essential to have a sense of harmony, integrity and eliminate the feeling of inferiority.
Children’s Rights and the Means of Their Protection They call for visibility of children and young people during the pandemic, universal access to quality healthcare for children of all ages, proactive assessment of their families and communities, and recognition of orphaned children.
Children Protection from Fire-Related Accidents The city has an altitude of fifteen meters above the level of the sea and depends on lakes; Houston, Livingstone, and Conroe as the main sources of water.
Pre-Inspection Preparedness Plan for Child Protection To prepare the Abu-Dhabi police for inspection, a preliminary inspection project should be organized. Potential risks will be reviewed to determine the key areas of work.
Legal Regulation of Child Protection in the US The article discusses the extent of legal regulation of child protection in the US within the scope of three periods that are suggested by the author.
Child Protection Actions in the United Kingdom The purpose of this paper is to analyze the available documentation and display a specific list of actions if a threat to the child is identified.
Children’s Rights and School Attendance What the writer fails to understand is that the law is a deterrent and this reduces instances of absconding school, what should be done is to enforce these laws to ensure maximum compliance; still, it […]
Making the World a Better Place to Live: Child Rights and You Organization They fought for the rights of the Palmyra workers in Tamil Nadu to force the Government to waive off the ban from the toddy tapping and form a trade union for the workers.
Amnesty International on Children’s Rights Human rights violations that the organization defends include and its not limited to; abolishing capital punishment, torturing of crime suspects, promotion of economic and cultural rights of the marginalized, protection of those who defend human […]
Children’s Rights: Article 12 of UNCRC Further to fulfill its commitment to safeguarding the rights and interests of children, the government of the UK passed the children act 2004.
Children’s Rights During the Armed Conflict As of the year 2007 Africa, especially the east and central African region was estimated to have the largest share of child soldiers in the world.
Children’s Rights in Qatari Legislation In the Permanent Constitution of Qatar, there are several articles that ensure the quality of all citizens of the country is Articles 34, 35, 21, and 22.
Children’s Rights in Various Cultural Traditions While it may be true that readings such as those by Clark and Cody elaborated on numerous instances of the necessity of children’s rights, especially in terms of education and the implementation of certain freedoms, […]
Australian Social Policy and Child Protection The social policy of Australia considers the protection of children and the quality of their lives a central concern. The initiative of the policy is to change the way Australian child protection agencies approach the […]
Children’s Right to Be Parented by the Best Parent If we attempt to answer what the parent really is, we are likely to touch upon the assumptions about the grounds, on which the right to parent a child is based.
Child Labor Protection and Solutions In the situation when there is no chance to get a high-quality education, sometimes a work may help children to acquire skills necessary to succeed in the future.
Camel Racing and Violation of Children’s Rights The author has stated in his blog, that the main reason for the startups to fail is the lack of proper understanding of the intended product, and the subsequent heading in the wrong direction.
Child Abuse and Protective Act in Idaho Also, abandonment is recognized in Idaho’s definition of child abuse, and, according to the Act, it means the failure of the parent or the guardian to foster a normal relationship with the child.
Children’s Rights: Physical Punishment Considering the mentioned issue from the stance of social work, it is necessary to emphasize that children’s rights in the view of physical punishment are not protected by the law since it is legal in […]
Child Labor Issue According to the Human Rights The International Labor Organization defines child labor as “work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential, and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development”1 Being a United Nations agency, ILO […]
Children’s Rights Educational Project The study will examine the current gaps and obstacles affecting the welfare of many children in different schools. Such stakeholders will present powerful suggestions that can be used to support the rights of more children.
Children’s Rights Protection Due to the risk factors exposed to children, it is necessary for the community to ensure that they protect the rights and wellbeing of children.
Children’s Rights: Global and Cultural View This is one of the issues that are poorly addressed by the governments of various countries. When speaking about the rights of children in the United Arab Emirates, one can first say that the government […]
Family Centred Practice in Child Protection Services Benefits of Family Involvement in Family Centred Practice The treatment and involvement of family members in family centred practice has been found to be extremely important in positively influencing the stability of children’s placement in […]
Youth Issues: The State of Children’s Rights in UAE This report will explain the needs for child rights policies as stipulated in the convection of the rights of the child, analyze the UAE laws, policies, and resources as regards to child’s rights and assess […]
Children Internet Protection Act The Child Internet Protection Act demanded that schools, institutions and library that offered internet services to underage children and using Educational Rate discounts and grants that were made through the Library Services Technology Act, were […]
Ways of Childcare and Protection This might be the reason why the day-care centres whose mission is to protect children and give them proper care are considered as more safe and preferable than majority of the homes.
Children’s Rights and Perceptions of Justice, Rights, and Equality
Enhancing and Protecting Children’s Rights
Children’s Rights, School Psychology, and Well-Being Assessments
Quality Education Through Child-Friendly Schools: Resource Allocation for the Protection of Children’s Rights
Struggle for Maintaining Children’s Rights Worldwide
Youth Issues: The State of Children’s Rights in the UAE
Protecting Children’s Rights in Modern Society
The Situation Around Children’s Rights in the UK
Rights of the Child and the Childcare in the United States
Analyzing the Importance of Children’s Rights
Importance of Children’s Right to an Education
Difficulties of Protecting African Children’s Rights
How Adults View the Children’s Rights
Censorship as a Contradiction to Children’s Rights
Universal Children’s Rights and Recognition of Cultural Differences in Child-Rearing Practices
Children’s Rights in Gay and Lesbian Families
N.Y. State Social Services and the Rights of Young Children
The Importance of Children’s Rights in India
Children’s Rights of Protection and Participation
Significance of Children’s Rights in Decision Making
Children’s Rights: Importance, Methodology, and Recommendations
The Problem of Violations of Children’s Rights
Children’s Rights: Progress and Perspectives
Implementation of Children’s Rights to Early Marriage in South Sudan
The Convention on the Rights of the Child
Analysis of the Issues Related to Children’s Rights
Children’s Rights: Global and Cultural View
Promoting Children’s Rights in Nepal
Children’s Rights and Why They Matter
Overview of Children’s Rights and Responsibilities
Corporal Punishment: A Violation of Children’s Rights
Nature Role and Limits of the Childs Rights Law
Right to Education: Situation of Children’s Right to Education Worldwide
Amendments to Children’s Rights Acts
Explanation of Ways to Promote Children’s Rights
Analysis of the Importance of Legislation for Children’s Rights
Child’s Rights: Children’s Perspective on Being Heard
Michael Freeman’s View of Children’s Rights
The Violation of Children’s Rights in Taiwan
The Rights of Female Children, Born and Unborn
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 9). 75 Children’s Rights Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/childrens-rights-essay-topics/

"75 Children’s Rights Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 9 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/childrens-rights-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '75 Children’s Rights Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 9 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "75 Children’s Rights Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/childrens-rights-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "75 Children’s Rights Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/childrens-rights-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "75 Children’s Rights Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/childrens-rights-essay-topics/.

Childcare Research Topics
Family Problems Questions
Child Abuse Essay Topics
Parenting Research Topics
Child Labour Research Topics
Family Relationships Research Ideas
Child Welfare Essay Ideas
Homeschooling Ideas
Domestic Violence Paper Topics
Human Rights Essay Ideas
Kindergarten Essay Topics
Pedagogy Topics
School Violence Ideas
Child Development Research Ideas
Juvenile Delinquency Essay Titles

Essay on Importance of Child Rights

Students are often asked to write an essay on Importance of Child Rights in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Importance of Child Rights

Introduction.

Child rights are fundamental freedoms and the inherent rights of all human beings below the age of 18. These rights apply to every child, irrespective of their race, religion, or abilities.

Importance of Child Rights

Child rights are important to safeguard the future of our society. They ensure children get the necessary care, protection, and opportunities for growth. They help in creating a safe and nurturing environment.

In conclusion, child rights are essential for a child’s overall development. They help in building a just society where every child gets an equal chance to grow and prosper.

Also check:

Speech on Importance of Child Rights

250 Words Essay on Importance of Child Rights

Child rights are fundamental freedoms and the inherent rights of all human beings below the age of 18. These rights apply to every child, regardless of their race, religion, or abilities. The importance of child rights cannot be understated as they ensure the holistic development of a child.

Protection and Survival

Child rights are crucial for the protection and survival of children. They safeguard children from harmful influences, abuse, and exploitation, and help provide access to basic necessities such as food, shelter, and clean water. These rights are essential for a child’s survival and overall well-being.

Education and Development

Child rights also play a pivotal role in education and development. They ensure every child has access to free, quality education, which is crucial for their intellectual growth, skill development, and future opportunities. Furthermore, child rights promote the participation of children in social, cultural, and educational activities, facilitating their holistic development.

Empowerment and Participation

Child rights empower children, encouraging them to voice their opinions and participate in decisions affecting their lives. This not only fosters a sense of responsibility but also helps in the development of their personality, self-esteem, and respect for others.

In conclusion, child rights are indispensable for the survival, protection, development, and empowerment of children. They are the building blocks that ensure a child grows into a healthy, educated, and responsible adult. Upholding child rights is not just a legal obligation but a moral imperative that society must fulfill.

500 Words Essay on Importance of Child Rights

Child rights are fundamental freedoms and inherent rights of all human beings below the age of 18. These rights apply to every child, irrespective of their race, religion or nationality. They ensure that children can grow up in an environment where they can thrive, learn, and develop to their full potential.

Recognition of Child Rights

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), adopted in 1989, is the most ratified international human rights treaty. It sets out a number of children’s rights including the right to life, to health, to education, and to play, as well as the right to family life, to be protected from violence, and not to be discriminated against. These rights are based on what a child needs to survive, grow, participate and meet their potential.

The Importance of Child Rights

Child rights are fundamental to ensuring a healthy development of a child and to preserving human dignity. Firstly, child rights are crucial for the survival and development of the child. Rights such as access to adequate healthcare, nutritious food, clean water, and education are vital for a child’s growth and development.

Secondly, child rights are important for the protection of the child. Children are vulnerable and often unable to protect themselves. Rights such as protection from abuse, exploitation and harmful cultural practices safeguard children from harm.

Thirdly, child rights enable children to participate in society. Rights such as freedom of expression, thought, and access to information allow children to engage in society, voice their opinions, and participate in decision-making processes that affect their lives.

Child Rights and Society

Child rights have a significant impact on society. By ensuring that every child has access to education, society benefits from a knowledgeable and skilled workforce in the future. Protecting children from harm reduces societal costs associated with healthcare and criminal justice. Encouraging child participation helps to create a more inclusive and democratic society.

Challenges to Child Rights

Despite the recognition of child rights, there are numerous challenges to their realization. Poverty, conflict, discrimination, and lack of education are some of the main obstacles. Additionally, the rights of certain groups of children, such as those who are refugees, disabled, or belong to minority groups, are often overlooked.

Child rights are not just moral principles, they are legal standards that are essential for the holistic development of children. They provide the foundation for a more just society where every individual has the opportunity to grow and develop to their full potential. While challenges persist, it is imperative that we continue to work towards the full realization of child rights for all children, everywhere. This is not just a legal obligation, but a commitment to our future.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Essay on Violent Video Games Affect Children Negatively
Essay on School Children Should Not Have Long Holidays
Essay on Children

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Childhood Studies

Chinese Studies
Cinema and Media Studies
Communication
Criminology
Environmental Science
Evolutionary Biology
International Law
International Relations
Islamic Studies
Jewish Studies
Latin American Studies
Latino Studies
Linguistics
Literary and Critical Theory
Medieval Studies
Military History
Political Science
Public Health
Renaissance and Reformation
Social Work
Urban Studies
Victorian Literature
Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Children’s Rights

Introduction, general overviews.

Anthologies
Reference Works
Liberationist Perspectives on Children’s Rights
Protection, or Caretaker, Approaches
Women’s Rights and Children’s Rights
Children’s Rights and Citizenship
Psychology and Children’s Rights
Children’s Views on Rights
Optional Protocols
Criticisms of Children’s Rights and the CRC
The CRC after Twenty-Five Years
Early Childhood
Rights to Participation
The Justice System
Children’s Rights in the Digital World
Australia and New Zealand
European Union
Latin America and the Caribbean
United States

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

Agency and Childhood
Childhood and the Colonial Countryside
Colonialism and Human Rights
Find more forthcoming articles...
Export Citations
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Children’s Rights by Heather Montgomery LAST REVIEWED: 11 January 2022 LAST MODIFIED: 11 January 2018 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199791231-0001

Children’s rights are an integral part of human rights; children have rights because they are human. This has been acknowledged and codified in national and international legislation, most notably in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC; 1989). Children are also accorded additional rights because it is recognized that they are more vulnerable than adults and have less power and access to resources. In law, children’s rights apply to persons between the ages of newborn and eighteen, following Article 1 of the CRC. Although this article has come under criticism for imposing an arbitrary time frame on childhood and for ignoring other phases in the life cycle, such as adolescence, discussions of children’s rights are framed by these chronological boundaries. The study of children’s rights is a comparatively new topic of interest, but it has generated a great deal of controversy across several fields, including social policy, law, philosophy, anthropology, and sociology. It also has significant impact in fields such as health care, education, and welfare provision. Certain rights have been enshrined in law, yet there is still much debate over the moral rights of children—whether these rights do, or should, exist and who should safeguard them.

The topic of children’s rights has been approached from a number of different perspectives—most notably, legal and philosophical. The majority of the key texts in the field came out in the 1990s, when legislation, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), was coming into force. The debates and philosophical background to the issue are most fully discussed in Archard 2004 and updated in Archard 2015 . The essays collected in Freeman 2004 analyze the tensions between autonomy and dependence and examine why children should have particular rights and how they should best be implemented. These issues are picked up and summarized in a single article, Campbell 1992 . John 2003 argues for a change of emphasis such that children’s rights be seen in terms of power relationships and structural inequalities rather than protection. Liebel, et al. 2012 and Denov, et al. 2011 look at the impacts of international children’s rights legislation on children’s lives and at the difficulties of implementation and supporting the philosophies behind the CRC in practice, particularly in the developing world. Hanson and Nieuwenhuys 2012 acknowledges these problems and proposes a new conceptual framework, examining the difficulties and challenges of implementing children’s rights cross-culturally.

Archard, David. Children: Rights and Childhood . 2d ed. London and New York: Routledge, 2004.

The key academic text for understanding the philosophical and moral basis of children’s rights. Clearly written, and suitable for undergraduates and above, the text relates children’s rights to ideas about childhood, examining why children need particular rights and relationships among child, adult, and state. Also looks at issues of age-related competencies.

Archard, David. Children: Rights and Childhood . 3d ed. London and New York: Routledge, 2015.

While retaining much of the overview of the second edition, this edition has a new chapter on the impacts of the CRC and a great emphasis on children’s rights in practice.

Campbell, Tom D. “The Rights of the Minor: As Person, as Child, as Juvenile, as Future Adult.” International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 6.1 (1992): 1–23.

DOI: 10.1093/lawfam/6.1.1

A concise but comprehensive look at the philosophical basis of children’s rights, asking what differentiates children and children’s rights from adults and their rights. The article discusses positive and moral rights and whether there is a contradiction between them. Also raises important questions of dependence and autonomy. Available online through purchase.

Denov, Myriam, Richard Maclure, and Kathryn Campbell, eds. Children’s Rights and International Development: Lessons and Challenges from the Field . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

DOI: 10.1057/9780230119253

An edited volume that looks at the difficulties of implementing children’s rights in the developing world. It uses case studies from South Africa, Asia, and Africa to illustrate the problems of ensuring children’s welfare holistically. Useful for practitioners and undergraduates.

Freeman, Michael D. A., ed. Children’s Rights . 2 vols. Aldershot, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004.

A collection of previously published scholarly articles that cover the key theorists from the early 1970s to 2003 in a variety of different disciplines, thereby showing the evolution in thinking on the subject. The text looks at arguments both for and against children’s rights and covers Europe, the United States, and the rest of the world.

Freeman, Michael, ed. The Future of Children’s Rights . Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2015.

Containing updated essays by many of the same scholars as in Freeman 2004 , the essays in this edited book look at the progress made and the ways forward. Contains works by some of the most important scholars in the field.

Hanson, Karl, and Olga Nieuwenhuys, eds. Reconceptualizing Children’s Rights in International Development: Living Rights, Social Justice, Translations . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139381796

A collection of essays edited by two key academics in childhood studies, with an excellent introduction that proposes a new conceptual framework for implementing children’s rights cross-culturally. Provides an overview of emerging issues and new ideas in the field.

John, Mary. Children’s Rights and Power: Charging Up for a New Century . Children in Charge. London and New York: Jessica Kingsley, 2003.

Concentrates on the issue of power in children’s relationships with adults and raises questions about how greatly children have been, or can be, empowered through rights. Using international case studies and examples, this book frames discussions of rights in terms of power and agency rather than autonomy or dependency.

Liebel, Manfred, Karl Hanson, Iven Saadi, and Wouter Vandenhole. Children’s Rights from Below: Cross-Cultural Perspectives . Studies in Childhood and Youth. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

DOI: 10.1057/9780230361843

Emphasizes the importance of cross-cultural understandings of children’s rights and of examining the differing contexts in which children live. Each chapter is written by an expert in the field, and this book is a vital starting point for understanding children’s rights in different parts of the world.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

About Childhood Studies »
Meet the Editorial Board »
Abduction of Children
Aboriginal Childhoods
Addams, Jane
ADHD, Sociological Perspectives on
Adolescence and Youth
Adoption and Fostering
Adoption and Fostering, History of Cross-Country
Adoption and Fostering in Canada, History of
Advertising and Marketing, Psychological Approaches to
Advertising and Marketing, Sociocultural Approaches to
Africa, Children and Young People in
African American Children and Childhood
After-school Hours and Activities
Aggression across the Lifespan
Ancient Near and Middle East, Child Sacrifice in the
Animals, Children and
Animations, Comic Books, and Manga
Anthropology of Childhood
Archaeology of Childhood
Ariès, Philippe
Attachment in Children and Adolescents
Australia, History of Adoption and Fostering in
Australian Indigenous Contexts and Childhood Experiences
Autism, Females and
Autism, Medical Model Perspectives on
Autobiography and Childhood
Benjamin, Walter
Bereavement
Bioarchaeology of Childhood
Body, Children and the
Bourdieu, Pierre
Boy Scouts/Girl Guides
Boys and Fatherhood
Breastfeeding
Bronfenbrenner, Urie
Bruner, Jerome
Buddhist Views of Childhood
Byzantine Childhoods
Child and Adolescent Anger
Child Beauty Pageants
Child Homelessness
Child Mortality, Historical Perspectives on Infant and
Child Protection
Child Protection, Children, Neoliberalism, and
Child Public Health
Child Trafficking and Slavery
Childcare Manuals
Childhood and Borders
Childhood and Empire
Childhood, Confucian Views of Children and
Childhood, Memory and
Childhood Studies and Leisure Studies
Childhood Studies in France
Childhood Studies, Interdisciplinarity in
Childhood Studies, Posthumanism and
Childhoods in the United States, Sports and
Children and Dance
Children and Film-Making
Children and Money
Children and Social Media
Children and Sport
Children and Sustainable Cities
Children as Language Brokers
Children as Perpetrators of Crime
Children, Code-switching and
Children in the Industrial Revolution
Children with Autism in a Brazilian Context
Children, Young People, and Architecture
Children's Humor
Children’s Museums
Children’s Reading Development and Instruction
Children's Views of Childhood
China, Japan, and Korea
China’s One Child Policy
Citizenship
Civil Rights Movement and Desegregation
Classical World, Children in the
Clothes and Costume, Children’s
Colonial America, Child Witches in
Colonization and Nationalism
Color Symbolism and Child Development
Common World Childhoods
Competitiveness, Children and
Conceptual Development in Early Childhood
Congenital Disabilities
Constructivist Approaches to Childhood
Consumer Culture, Children and
Consumption, Child and Teen
Conversation Analysis and Research with Children
Critical Approaches to Children’s Work and the Concept of ...
Cultural psychology and human development
Debt and Financialization of Childhood
Discipline and Punishment
Discrimination
Disney, Walt
Divorce And Custody
Domestic Violence
Drawings, Children’s
Early Childhood Care and Education, Selected History of
Eating disorders and obesity
Education: Learning and Schooling Worldwide
Environment, Children and the
Environmental Education and Children
Ethics in Research with Children
Europe (including Greece and Rome), Child Sacrifice in
Evolutionary Studies of Childhood
Family Meals
Fandom (Fan Studies)
Female Genital Cutting
Feminist New Materialist Approaches to Childhood Studies
Feral and "Wild" Children
Fetuses and Embryos
Films about Children
Films for Children
Folk Tales, Fairy Tales and
Foundlings and Abandoned Children
Freud, Anna
Freud, Sigmund
Friends and Peers: Psychological Perspectives
Froebel, Friedrich
Gay and Lesbian Parents
Gender and Childhood
Generations, The Concept of
Geographies, Children's
Gifted and Talented Children
Globalization
Growing Up in the Digital Era
Hall, G. Stanley
Happiness in Children
Hindu Views of Childhood and Child Rearing
Hispanic Childhoods (U.S.)
Historical Approaches to Child Witches
History of Childhood in America
History of Childhood in Canada
HIV/AIDS, Growing Up with
Homeschooling
Humor and Laughter
Images of Childhood, Adulthood, and Old Age in Children’s ...
Infancy and Ethnography
Infant Mortality in a Global Context
Innocence and Childhood
Institutional Care
Intercultural Learning and Teaching with Children
Islamic Views of Childhood
Japan, Childhood in
Juvenile Detention in the US
Klein, Melanie
Labor, Child
Latin America
Learning, Language
Learning to Write
Legends, Contemporary
Literary Representations of Childhood
Literature, Children's
Love and Care in the Early Years
Magazines for Teenagers
Maltreatment, Child
Maria Montessori
Marxism and Childhood
Masculinities/Boyhood
Material Cultures of Western Childhoods
Mead, Margaret
Media, Children in the
Media Culture, Children's
Medieval and Anglo-Saxon Childhoods
Menstruation
Middle Childhood
Middle East
Miscarriage
Missionaries/Evangelism
Moral Development
Moral Panics
Multi-culturalism and Education
Music and Babies
Nation and Childhood
Native American and Aboriginal Canadian Childhood
New Reproductive Technologies and Assisted Conception
Nursery Rhymes
Organizations, Nongovernmental
Parental Gender Preferences, The Social Construction of
Pediatrics, History of
Peer Culture
Perspectives on Boys' Circumcision
Philosophy and Childhood
Piaget, Jean
Politics, Children and
Postcolonial Childhoods
Post-Modernism
Poverty, Rights, and Well-being, Child
Pre-Colombian Mesoamerica Childhoods
Premodern China, Conceptions of Childhood in
Prostitution and Pornography, Child
Psychoanalysis
Queer Theory and Childhood
Race and Ethnicity
Racism, Children and
Radio, Children, and Young People
Readers, Children as
Refugee and Displaced Children
Reimagining Early Childhood Education, Reconceptualizing a...
Relational Ontologies
Relational Pedagogies
Rights, Children’s
Risk and Resilience
School Shootings
Sex Education in the United States
Social and Cultural Capital of Childhood
Social Habitus in Childhood
Social Movements, Children's
Social Policy, Children and
Socialization and Child Rearing
Socio-cultural Perspectives on Children's Spirituality
Sociology of Childhood
South African Birth to Twenty Project
South Asia, History of Childhood in
Special Education
Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence
Spock, Benjamin
Sports and Organized Games
Street Children
Street Children And Brazil
Subcultures
Teenage Fathers
Teenage Pregnancy
The Bible and Children
The Harms and Prevention of Drugs and Alcohol on Children
The Spaces of Childhood
Theater for Children and Young People
Theories, Pedagogic
Transgender Children
Twins and Multiple Births
Unaccompanied Migrant Children
United Kingdom, History of Adoption and Fostering in the
United States, Schooling in the
Value of Children
Views of Childhood, Jewish and Christian
Violence, Children and
Visual Representations of Childhood
Voice, Participation, and Agency
Vygotsky, Lev and His Cultural-historical Approach to Deve...
Welfare Law in the United States, Child
Well-Being, Child
Western Europe and Scandinavia
Witchcraft in the Contemporary World, Children and
Work and Apprenticeship, Children's
Young Carers
Young Children and Inclusion
Young Children’s Imagination
Young Lives
Young People, Alcohol, and Urban Life
Young People and Climate Activism
Young People and Disadvantaged Environments in Affluent Co...
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility

[66.249.64.20|185.80.150.64]
185.80.150.64

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Child — Convention on the Rights of the Child

Convention on The Rights of The Child

Categories: Child Children

About this sample

Words: 421 |

Published: Jan 4, 2019

Words: 421 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

The aims of education
The role of independent human rights institutions
HIV/AIDS and the rights of the child
Adolescent Health
General measures of implementation
Treatment of unaccompanied and separated children outside their country of origin
Implementing child rights in early childhood
The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment
The rights of children with disabilities
Children’s rights in juvenile justice
Indigenous children and their rights under the UNCRC
The right of the child to be heard
The right of the child to freedom from all forms of violence.

Works Cited:

Abraham, T. (2020). The American Dream: Dead, Alive, or on Hold? The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, 45(4), 102-117. https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P4-2415500693/the-american-dream-dead-alive-or-on-hold
Balko, R. (2019). The War on Drugs and the American Dream. In L. Rosenbaum (Ed.), Economic Liberties and the Judiciary (pp. 189-197). Springer.
Daniels, A. (2018). The American Dream: Is It Dead or Just Different? Cognella Academic Publishing.
Hsu, H. (2019). Immigrants and the American Dream: How the United States Became a Destination for International Migrants. ABC-CLIO.
Krauthammer, C. (2013). The American Dream: Dead, Alive, or on Hold? The American Interest, 8(4), 3-9. https://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/03/19/the-american-dream-dead-alive-or-on-hold/
Lewis, J. M. (2018). America's Dreams Deferred: The Broken Promise of the American Dream. ABC-CLIO.
Pew Research Center. (2019). Most Americans Say the Current Economic Situation is Helping the Rich, Hurting the Poor and Middle Class. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/06/25/most-americans-say-the-current-economic-situation-is-helping-the-rich-hurting-the-poor-and-middle-class/
Shank, R. (2017). The American Dream and the Power of Wealth: Choosing Schools and Inheriting Inequality in the Land of Opportunity. Routledge.
Shiller, R. J. (2012). The American Dream: Dead, Alive, or on Hold? Yale University Press.
Zogby, J. (2008). The Way We'll Be: The Zogby Report on the Transformation of the American Dream. Random House LLC.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 820 words

3 pages / 1300 words

2 pages / 994 words

7 pages / 3009 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Convention on The Rights of The Child Essay

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Child

Childhood obesity is a growing epidemic that has serious implications for the health and well-being of our youth. With the rise of technology and sedentary lifestyles, children are spending more time indoors and less time [...]

Child discipline refers to the methods used by parents or caregivers to teach children about appropriate behavior and to correct unacceptable behaviors. It is an important aspect of parenting as it helps children learn [...]

Being the eldest child in a family carries a unique set of responsibilities and privileges. It is a role that often comes with expectations and challenges, but it also offers valuable opportunities for personal growth and [...]

Do you ever find yourself reminiscing about the carefree days of childhood, only to realize that adulthood comes with its own set of challenges and responsibilities? While childhood and adulthood may seem like two entirely [...]

The main stages of child and young person development From birth through to adulthood children continually grow, develop, and learn. A child’s development can be measured through social, emotional, intellectual, physical and [...]

It is very striking to see how technology has entered our lives and how sadly it is changing our traditions. In this case the theme of the games is presented, about how they have been breaking even in the lives of the youngest [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

The Importance of Children’s Rights

Introduction, do children need to have rights, why children need rights, cases of child abuse and the need to have rights, conclusion and recommendations.

Children are human beings who are still young and among them there are those who are very young. By virtue of them being human beings, they possess particular moral status. They are not supposed to be subjected to some kind of treatment because they are human. But at the same time, the children are not on the same level as mature human beings and therefore there are those activities they are not allowed to carry out, which the adults are allowed to. For example, in most of the jurisdictions, the children are not allowed to engage in voting, marrying, purchasing alcoholic drinks, getting involved in sexual activities or being employed for payment. According to Callan (2002) , the reason for causing children to turn out to be a special case for concern “is this combination of their humanity and youth”.

Among the questions that have been raised is the question of whether or not the children have rights and if they have, whether the rights they have are the same as those the adults have. More so, another question that has been raised in line with this is that; if the children do not have rights that are the same as those of the adults, what are measures that have been put in place to make sure that the children are given treatment that is morally right? In many countries, the jurisdictions that have been put in place accord legal rights to children. Of great significance, many of the nations are signatories to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which was set up in the year 1989. This convention accords a broad spectrum of rights to the children. One of the most important righteousness that have been accorded to the children under this convention is the children’s right to have “best interests” in all the activities that affect them. Another one is “the right to life” and also “the right of a child who is capable of expressing his or her own views, to express these views freely in all matters affecting the child” (United Nations 1989).

This UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is of great significance in ensuring that children have rights. There have been several cases where children have been abused. Children have been victims of war in which some have been killed, others have become refugees or internally displaced persons thus being exposed to various forms of abuse, they have served as child soldiers, some have faced detention, others have been abused sexually, girls have been subjected to genital mutilation, and still others have been forced to engage in child employment under which they have been exploited. Following these ills to which the children in many nations all over the world have been exposed, it can be clearly seen that children need rights and these rights need to be legally recognized to ensure that they are protected to the maximum level possible. Even if some people have come up with arguments against children having rights, especially those rights that are legally recognized and argued that the children are not at the same level as adults to have rights and need some other form of protection from the adults; such arguments can be seen to be invalid especially considering the abuse the children are experiencing all over the world and therefore, children need rights.

The questions that have been put forth by some people are; do children need to have rights, and if they need to have rights, which kind of rights are they supposed to have? It is important to be aware that rights can be moral or legal rights. Based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the children possess the rights in law. These are not necessarily accepted as being moral rights. On the other hand, as O’Neill (1988) points out, “if children have moral rights these need not be enshrined in law, although there would evidently be a strong presumption that they should” (Page 457).

Some people have presented claims that children are supposed to have all the rights which older people have. Such kinds of people having this view are referred to as “liberationists”. Among this people that embrace this view is Cohen, Holt and Farson (Cohen 1980, Holt 1975 and Farson 1974). A distinction can be made between real liberationists and rhetoric liberationists. The rhetorical liberationists do not really have a belief that the children are supposed to be given equal rights as the mature people. Instead, they have thoughts that presenting claims as such is the most excellent way of realizing the advancement of their interests. On the other hand, the real liberationists don’t see any difference between adult people and children but they regard them as being on the same level. More so, there are those people who believe that children are supposed to have some rights but they should not have all the rights that the adults are supposed to have.

Still, there is that group of people that believes that children are not supposed to have any rights. They claim that children are not qualified like adults to have rights. They also claim that attribution of rights to children is not appropriate for the reason that this brings in a lack of understanding of what childhood really is or the relationship that is supposed to exist between children and adults (Archard, 1993). More so, they also argue that, even if the children may not be given the rights, they can have assurance of receiving moral protection in other ways.

Generally, children do not have some particular cognitive abilities that enable them to obtain information and process it in a manner that is orderly, to set up beliefs that are firm and to have acknowledgement of the importance of available alternatives and their outcomes. More so, the children do not have particular volitional capabilities that enable them to come up with decisions or choices that are independent. However, children are not distinct among human beings in this regard. There are those adult people who are mentally retarded and they are also considered as being incapable of making independent choices. This implies that these people are just like children. But then, the children are not similar to such people. It is true to say that not all the human beings in the world are mentally retarded or have ever been exposed to this condition. But on the other hand, it is true to say that all adult human beings at some point in life were children and have experienced what being a child is like. Therefore, each and every person in the course of the early years of his or her life was not capable of possessing rights even though in adulthood life, he or she is so capable to possess the rights. Basing on these claims, the child’s lack of capacity would tend not to qualify them to possess liberty rights. According to Griffin (2002) “if all human rights are best interpreted as protecting human agency and its preconditions, then it would follow that those incapable of agency, such as young children, should not be accorded human rights (page 27). However, as Brighouse (2002), points out “whilst children lack agency they certainly have fundamental interests meriting protection and thus at least have welfare rights” (Page 36). More so, it can be of great significance to make recognition that children turn out to be human beings that are able to make decisions and that they may qualify to have rights through recognizing this continual growth (Brennan, 2002).

According to Amnesty International USA (2010), ensuring that human rights are there for children is an asset for the future. The rights of children are the materials for setting up a strong culture for human rights and this forms a base for protecting human rights for the coming generations. It is pointed out that “as human beings, children are entitled to all the rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) and the various covenants that have developed from it” (Amnesty International USA, 2010, Para 2). However, in addition, children are supposed to be given special care and protection. They are supposed to be in a position to have dependence on the adult people to give them care, to protect their rights and to offer them assistance in order to build up and have realization of the potential they have. According to Amnesty International, USA (2010), the governments around the world have presented claims to embrace this ideal. However, these governments have in turn shown signs of failure about making sure that there is respect for children’s rights.

In a similar way as adults, children undergo suffering that stems from the human rights violations but the children may also be easy targets for the reason that they are reliant and defenseless. Among some states, officials get involved in tormenting and mistreatment of the children, the children face detention, either lawfully or arbitrarily and even in some nations, the children may face death sentences. During wars, children have been mercilessly killed and a large number of them have escaped from their homes to turn out to be refugees. Those children that have been driven by poverty to go and become street children or forced by abuse in some cases face detention, attack and even death. Millions and millions of children are victims of child labor and they are highly exploited and others have been forced in to child prostitution among other evils.

The international community has come to realize the vitality of offering protection to children against these evils that they are exposed to. The initial attempt to ensure there is protection of children against abuse was carried out in the year 1959 where there was coming up with 10 principles by the “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child” but at that time it was not legal for these principles to be enforced. Later in time, in the year 1989, there was adoption of the “Convention on the Right of the Child” by the United Nations General Assembly and this was enforced in the course of the year that followed (1990). From that time, the UN “Convention on the Rights of the Child” has been approved by all the all the member countries of the United Nations apart from Somalia which has not been able for a long time to have a government that can effectively run the national affairs effectively. The CRC has also not been approved in the United States of America.

The “Convention on the Rights of the Child” facilitates elaboration of the rights in accordance to the child’s special needs as well as his or her viewpoints. The CRC is the sole human treaty for human rights “that covers the full spectrum of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, stressing their indivisible and interdependent relationship” (Amnesty International USA, 2010 Para 9). By it having an all-inclusive nature and almost general approval, the “Convention on the Rights of the Child” emerges to be a landmark for global agreement on the fundamental principles of the “universality and indivisibility of all human rights” (Amnesty International USA, 2010).

Basing on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, any person who is below eighteen years of age is regarded as a child unless stated otherwise by the law about who an adult is. This provision poses significant challenges for putting in to use the CRC and most particularly in nations in which the age of adulthood is connected to puberty which is an age that is mostly not the same among boys and girls. Basing on the Convention on the Rights of a child, all the nations are supposed to set up the lowest possible age for criminal responsibility, which is, “according to the Beijing Rule (1), should ‘not be fixed at low an age level bearing in mind the facts of emotional, mental and intellectual maturity’ “ (Amnesty International USA, 2010, Para 11). Even if a nation may fix the “criminal responsibility age” at an age lower than eighteen years, the rights in the CRC are still relevant, and essentially those rights that govern the treatment of the child at the operations of the authorities.

Among the directing rules is the rule that the “best interests of the child” is supposed to be a basic concern in all dealings that are linked to the child. All the children possess the right to be heard and the right to present what they think about issues that affect them so that these issues may be considered or resolved. Those children who may still be very young depend on other people in expressing their opinions and having their best interests protected but as they become older and older with time, they turn out to be more and more capable of expressing themselves and to take part in coming up with decisions by themselves.

It is the responsibility of any government to make sure that there is enjoying by the children of the rights that they have. Not even a single child is supposed to be subjected to discrimination. It was made clear in the Cult Education Forum (2010) that there should be application of the Convention on the Rights of the Child “regardless of race, color, sex, property, language, religion, political opinion or any other opinion, ethnic or social origin, disability, birth or any other status” (Para 7). There need to be equal offering of opportunity to the male child as well as to the female child. The disadvantaged children due to poverty, disability, being refugees, and coming from minority or indigenous groups are supposed to possess the same rights just as the rest of the children. They are supposed to be given equal rights to education, equal rights to grow, and all of them are supposed to enjoy sufficient living standards.

The children’s rights that are found in the CRC are put in four major classes. These classes include:

Subsistence rights
Development rights
Protection rights
Participation rights

The subsistence rights concern the rights to obtain food, healthcare and the rights to have shelter. The development rights concern those rights that need to be possessed by the child to realize full potential in life including the right to education, religion and the freedom of thought. Protection rights refer to the right to life and the protection against abuse and exploitation and also against being neglected. Participations rights are rights that allow the child to play an active part in the community life as well as the political life (Cult Education Forum, 2010).

On the other hand, not only does the Convention on the Rights concern itself with the rights of the child, but it as well concerns the responsibility the child is supposed to have in regard to respect for the rights of those people around him or her or those people the child comes across. This convention makes recognition that all the children are supposed to be in a position to grow up in a family environment that is dominated with love and happiness, and this convention also makes stipulation that the duty of the family is to offer assistance to the child in order for him or her to have understanding of the rights he or she has and the responsibility he or she has so that this child can be prepared to live a life in which he or she embraces peace, freedom, equality, togetherness, perseverance, and integrity.

Most of often, during a war many children are greatly affected. Among the children, there are those who have experienced war throughout their lives and have never known peace. There are also those children whose world has changed when the war started up in their area and they have turned out to be refugees or internally displaced persons, parting with their family members. More so, millions of children have been killed during the war and others have been left as orphans after their parents being killed in the course of the war. To add on this, there have been common cases, as the result of war, of children suffering malnutrition, starvation and lack of other essential things that are vital for a better living. Many children have also experienced trauma after being witnesses of brutal murder, their lives marked with violence around them and going through fear and hardships. Still, there has been a large number of children who have been forced to take part in killing other people.

Not in all cases are the children accidental victims of the war. There are cases where there is deliberate murdering of the children by the soldiers as well as by the armed opposition groups. This has been carried out for either of the two main reasons. One of the main reasons is that this is carried out in revenge and the other reason for carrying out this is as a way of provoking anger in one another’s community. The young girls are sexually abused. Taking the case in India, young boys are targeted by the soldiers with a belief that these young boys may be supporting the armed opposition groups or they might be potential members of these groups in time to come (Amnesty International USA, 2010).

The children have been forced to be members of the armed groups, either armed forces or armed opposition groups through intimidating them and threatening to kill their family members. Still, there are cases where children have volunteering to join. This has come about for the reason that these children are ready to fight, or in some cases it is because their families do not have food and other basic needs, or they have joined for the reason that they do not have homes and they lack food and sufficient security. Many of these children are not given enough training to engage in the fight as well as being given effective equipment before they are exposed to the war of adult people.

Resulting from this, many deaths have occurred among children and this has resulted from their lack of experience and training, and also because they have been given the most dangerous assignments during the war and such assignments may include planting the landmines or the intelligence work. According to Kaplan (2005) “in Colombia, child soldiers are sometimes called little bees, because of their size and agility enables them to move quickly and sting their enemies” (Paragraph 12).

Considering the case in Uganda, there have been cases of kidnapping of a large number of children by the LRA and these children have been forced to engage in fighting against the military forces of this country. These children that are abducted by this opposition group become the property of the commanders of the group and the girls are forced to get married to these people and they become their sexual slaves. As Dolan ( 2002) points out “LRA commanders force children to take part in the ritualized killing of others soon after they are seized, apparently to breakdown resistance, destroy taboos about killing, implicate children in criminal acts and generally to terrorize them” (Para 4).

Taking the case of Burundi, a number of children have been arrested and put in prison accused of having worked together with the armed opposition groups. However, among these children, there are those who have come to work together with the armed opposition groups forcefully, carrying weapons and carrying out other tasks. Not even one among these children has been tried (Amnesty International USA, 2010).

The subject of child soldiers has turned out to be of much concern on a higher level on the list of items of the global community. “The Convention on the Rights of the Child in the present day has put the minimum age for a child to be recruited in the armed forces and take part in hostilities at 15 years” (Amnesty International USA, 2010). But on the other hand, the Non-governmental organizations have been presenting arguments to bring to an end the use of child soldiers and they have insisted that for the child to be recruited, he or she needs to have attained a minimum age of eighteen years. This argument by the NGOS has been supported by such organizations as UNICEF, UNHCR, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and the “Expert of the UN Secretary-General on the Impact of Armed Conflict on Children” ( Amnesty International USA, 2010). The United Nations itself does not permit those people under the age of eighteen years to engage in serving as peacekeepers any more.

In acknowledging the Convention on the Rights of the Child, several governments show commitment to protect the rights of the child. The CRC makes a declaration that each and every child has a right to attain an education and have an improved standard of living. It sets up the child’s right not to be prone to being abused sexually and being exploited in any way and using illegal drugs. The Convention on the Rights of Child brings commitment to the nations to bring the young people from being exploited economically or experience interference with their education and being exposed to poor health.

However, ensuring delivering this commitment is something that is greatly challenging. Among the governments, there are those that have taken a move to put in place legislation to protect children from being exposed to child labor and have put in place educational programs to ensure all the children achieve an education. But this move can not justify the manner the officials of the state assist in perpetuating a broad array of abuses that are exercised against children in the family as well as in the community either by way of dynamic involvement and participation or implicit toleration and compliance.

The range of child abuses in the community as well as in the family includes violence in the family and being treated in an ill manner in institutions among others. Children being prone to such abuses as these ones is dependent on other features of the identity they have like gender, the ethnic group they come from and the economic status that is associated with them. This serves to remind in a strong way about lack of divisibility of the human rights. Denying a particular set of rights brings about abuse of the other sets of the rights. The children refused to have an education for the reason that they are girls or for the reason of their poor economic status and exposed to forced labor face conviction of a series of marginalization, poor living standards and lack of power that brings in more violation of their rights.

More so, children in most parts of the world are exposed to hard work. They work in such places as mines, factories and brothels among other places. The children are mostly subject to work in such environments that are very dangerous and unhealthy. Following this, this is an indication that the children are not always given their rights that are promise to them by the Convention on the Right of the Child like recreation and health among other rights. They end up leading their lives as illiterate people and lack skills and this result in to these children turning out to be criminals. A large number of children are sold out by their parents in to slavery or they are also forced in to employment.

Another issue that relates to the rights of the children is the issue of female genital mutilation. This problem has been very common is such places as Africa where the young girls are forced to undergo genital mutilation as a way of initiating them in to adulthood. They are not allowed to get married if they fail to undergo this ritual. However, keen consideration of this issue clearly shows that this is a form of violence against children as well as women and a way of depriving them their basic rights. Efforts are being carried out to deal with this issue by governments. A case can be taken from Cote d’Ivore where there has been presentation of a bill that is aimed at prohibiting female genital mutilation. More so, such efforts have been made by such countries as Egypt and Ethiopia among others (Center for Reproductive Rights, 2008).However, much still need to be done. This should be carried out bearing in mind that the children’s rights need to be protected.

There are many more abuses that are committed against the children. The children have been exposed to unfair procedures in the judicial systems. Some have faced unfair detention and some have even been sentenced to death. More so, those children. Children in refugee camps and the IDPs camp have been subjected to exploitation ranging from sexual abuse and being deprived the right to have access to basic needs. In most cases, those children in the in IDP camps are not able to continue with their education. But on the other hand, those who have been able to across borders to enter in to other countries as refugees stand a better chance to be protected by these governments especially if they are those that are signatories to the CRC. But unlucky enough, this is not often realized (Amnesty International USA, 2010).

Children need rights. These rights that need to be given to children are aimed at protecting them against the abuses to which they may be exposed. Children have been victims of war, they have served as child soldiers, some have faced detention, others have been abused sexually, girls have been subjected to genital mutilation, and still others have been forced to engage in child employment under which they have been exploited among other abuses. All these evils that have been committed against children need to be done away with. To do away with these child abuses, appropriate laws need to be put in place to ensure that the children have rights and these rights are protected in the most efficient manner possible.

The CRC places “the best interest of the child” at the core in all the activities regarding the child. All the governments, families and opposition groups among all other parties are supposed to abide by this principle in whatever the matter that concerns the child treatment. However, the government stands at a better position in implementing all the moves that are aimed at protecting the child. One of the moves that are supposed to be taken by governments is the move of ensuring passing of legislation that gives assurance of the realization of the children rights that are set out in the Convention on the rights for the child and avail sufficient resources to ensure implementation of these rights.

Another initiative that needs to be taken by the governments is to make sure that those children who are in detention or under the care of either private or public institutions are offered protection against torture or any other ill treatment. More so, the governments of nations all over the world are supposed to make sure that those people who are below 18 years of age that come across the justice system are exposed to the judicial dealings that are special basing on the basic principles for juvenile justice that have been established by the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Another move that is supposed to be undertaken by the governments in all nations is to ensure enforcement of global prohibition of subjecting children to death penalty for the crimes they commit and particularly when they have not attained the age of eighteen years. The governments should also make sure that the children face detention in only those cases where this is seen as the only remaining options and they should be detained for the minimum time period possible. They are not supposed to be detained unfairly like in such cases where their parents were suspects or those people close to them.

Another move that need to be undertaken by governments is to ensure banning of recruitment of children in the armed forces and sternly forbid any taking part of children in armed hostilities. More so, the governments should put in place measures to ensure that there is protection of those children who are refugee or internally displaced. This move should be aimed at protecting children against such ills as sexual exploitation and recruitment to enter in to armed forces. Measures should be in place to help in ensuring that these children are resettled in a most dignified manner and in a safe manner.

Still, as a move to ensure that children enjoy their rights, the governments should take immediate measures to bring to an end dangerous and exploitative kinds of labor for the children and these kinds of practices include exposing children to commercial sex, bonded labor and any other form of work that puts in danger the well-being of the children. Lastly, the governments are supposed to set up all-inclusive programs that ensure there is promotion of equal treatment of children regardless of whether they are boys or girls and to do away with those cultural practices that are harmful to the children.

Archard, D., 1993. Children: rights and childhood , Oxon: Routledge. Amnesty International USA, 2010, Humankind owes the child the best it has to give . Web.

Brennan, S., 2002, Children’s Choices or Children’s interests: Which do their rights protect? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brighouse, H., 2002, What rights (if any) do children have? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Callan, E., 2002, Autonomy, Child-Rearing, and Good Lives , in The Moral and Political Status of Children: New Essays, D. Archard and C. Macleod (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press: 118-141.

Center for Reproductive Rights, 2008, Female genital mutilations: Legal prohibitions worldwide .

Cohen, H., 1980, Equal rights for children, Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, and Co.

Cult Education Forum, 2010, The Convention on the Rights of Child (the CRC) . Web.

Dolan, C., 2002, Which children count? The politics of children’s rights in northern Uganda .

Farson, R., 1974, Birthrights , London: Collier Macmillan.

Griffin, J., 2002, Do children have rights? In The moral and political status of children: New Essays, D. Archard and C. Macleod (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press: 19 – 30.

Holt, J. C., 1975, Escape from childhood: The needs and rights of children , Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Kaplan, E., Child soldiers around the world . Web.

O’Neill, O. 1988, Children’s Rights and Children’s lives , Ethics , 98: 445 – 463.

United Nations (1989), The Convention on the Rights of the Child , reprinted in Children, Rights and the Law, P. Alston, S. Parker and J. Seymour (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press: 245 – 264.

Cite this paper

Chicago (N-B)
Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, February 6). The Importance of Children’s Rights. https://studycorgi.com/the-importance-of-childrens-rights/

"The Importance of Children’s Rights." StudyCorgi , 6 Feb. 2022, studycorgi.com/the-importance-of-childrens-rights/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'The Importance of Children’s Rights'. 6 February.

1. StudyCorgi . "The Importance of Children’s Rights." February 6, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/the-importance-of-childrens-rights/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "The Importance of Children’s Rights." February 6, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/the-importance-of-childrens-rights/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "The Importance of Children’s Rights." February 6, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/the-importance-of-childrens-rights/.

This paper, “The Importance of Children’s Rights”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: April 6, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Children’s Rights

‘In present-day political and moral philosophy the idea that all persons are in some way moral equals has become dogma’ (Steinhoff ed. 2015, xi). Yet in the collection of essays from whose Introduction this quotation comes and that seeks to explain and justify this foundational ‘dogma’, ‘children’ does not figure in its index and are barely discussed if at all. Whilst children are thought of as human beings and thus having a moral status such that it would be wrong to treat them in certain ways, it is also thought reasonable that there are things children may not do that adults may. In short, children are humans but not persons morally equal to adults. This is nowhere clearer than when considering what in law children are permitted or entitled to do as well as prevented from doing. In most jurisdictions, for instance, children are not allowed to vote, to marry, to buy alcohol, to have sex, or to engage in paid employment. Then there are things that should not be done to children because they are children, such as conscription into military service. Why should that be the case?

One very obvious way in which this issue of what distinguishes children from adults can be addressed is by asking the following questions, Do children have rights? If so, do they have all the rights that adults have and do they have rights that adults do not have? If they do not have rights how do we ensure that they are treated in the morally right way? Most jurisdictions accord children legal rights. Most countries—though not the United States of America—have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which was first adopted in 1989. The Convention accords to children a wide range of rights including, most centrally, the ‘inherent right to life’ (Article 6), and the right of a child “who is capable of forming his or her own views … to express these views freely in all matters affecting the child” (Article 12) (United Nations 1989).

However, it is normal to distinguish between ‘positive’ rights, those that are recognised in law, and ‘moral’ rights, those that are recognised by some moral theory. That children have ‘positive’ rights does not then settle the question of whether they do or should have moral rights. Nevertheless, there are at least good political reasons why one might think that the UNCRC provides an exemplary statement—in the language of positive rights—of how children should be treated and regarded. The idea of children as rights holders has been subject to different kinds of philosophical criticism. There has also been philosophical consideration of what kinds of rights children have if they do have any rights at all. The various debates shed invaluable light on both the nature and value of rights, and on the moral status of children.

The question of how the putative rights of children stand in relation to the rights of those adults who, arguably, have rights over children broaches the issues of parental rights and responsibilities which is not discussed here. (See the entry on procreation and parenthood .)

1. Children and Rights

2. critics of children’s rights, 3. liberationism, 4. arbitrariness, 5. children’s rights and adult rights, 6. the child’s right to grow up, 7. best interests, 8. children and the reproduction of values, 9. the right to be heard, 10. summary, references cited, other important work, other internet resources, related entries.

In the background of any consideration of children and rights are two matters: what counts as a child, and what is to be understood as capacity. The latter arises inasmuch as the question of whether children have rights and, if so, which ones normally turns on whether they have the relevant capacity.

What counts as a child and how we should understand ‘childhood’ are interesting philosophical questions. They are considered at length in Part I of Archard (2015). (See also the entry on childhood .) We may usefully distinguish a concept from a conception of the child as follows: ‘to have a concept of “childhood” is to recognise that children differ interestingly from adults; to have a conception of childhood is to have a view of what those interesting differences are’ (Archard 2015, 32). Having made this distinction we should recognise that conceptions of childhood vary across time and cultures. Moreover, conceptions of childhood may beg normative questions of why children have a different moral status to adults. In what follows a child is understood simply as a human being at a certain chronological stage of development. For instance, Article 1 of the United Nations Convention defines a child as any human being below the age of eighteen years ‘unless,’ it adds, ‘under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier’ (United Nations 1989; Archard and Tobin 2019).

The concept of capacity is relevant to questions both of which theory of rights is correct as well as to which rights children might have. Other terms such as ‘competence’ and ‘ability’ are often used as if they were equivalent to ‘capacity’. However, it is important to be clear how ‘capacity’ is used (Cowden 2012). Here it is used as a dispositional concept. Someone has the capacity to do X if they could do X given the opportunity and in the appropriate circumstances. It is to be distinguished from an occurrent ability or competence to do X. Thus, a mature rational adult has the capacity to make autonomous choices, but may be temporarily unable to choose autonomously because, for instance, on this occasion their mind is disturbed, or their will is overborne. The notion of a child’s capacity should not be understood as meaning that they have it inasmuch as they would be able as an adult to do certain things. Nevertheless, the distinct claim – that allowing a child at some age to exercise a given right would encourage the acquisition of the qualifying capacity that is otherwise lacked – should be acknowledged and given due weight.

On the question of whether children have rights and which ones, some think it obvious that children do have rights and believe that the only interesting question is whether children possess all and only those rights which adults possess. Others are sceptical believing that given the nature both of rights and of children it is wrong to think of children as right-holders.

Fully and properly to address this issue it is necessary first to be clearer about the language of rights and to distinguish several different questions. First, we can inquire as to what it is for someone to have a right, or, put another way, we can ask what being a right-holder consists in.We can ask a second question, namely what must be true for there to be rights. That is, we can try to specify what have been called the ‘existence conditions for rights’ (Sumner 1987, 10–11). Third, we can ask what the different kinds of rights are. Finally, we can ask what the moral significance of having a right is, or what weight rights have. With regard to any acknowledged right we can identify it by means of its content (what is it a right to?) and its scope (who has it and against whom do they have it?), as well as its weight relative to other rights and to other moral considerations. Not all of these questions are relevant when we want to focus on the particular issue of whether or not children have rights, and, if so, which ones. However, the first question raised above is especially salient. In response, there are two competing theories whose respective virtues and vices have been extensively debated. In one camp is the will or choice theory (Hart 1973; Sumner 1987; Steiner 1994); in the opposing camp is the welfare or interest theory (MacCormick 1982; Raz 1984; Kramer 1998). The first theory sees a right as the protected exercise of choice. In particular to have a right is to have the power to enforce or waive the duty of which the right is the correlative. The second theory sees a right as the protection of an interest of sufficient importance to impose on others certain duties whose discharge allows the right-holder to enjoy the interest in question. It is natural to think that each theory is more appropriate for certain kinds of rights. The will theory fits rights actively to do things (to speak, to associate with others) whereas the interest theory fits rights passively to enjoy or not to suffer things (to receive health care, not to be tortured). However, the distinction between the theories of what it is to have a right is not, and does not coincide with the distinction between different kinds of rights, even if there are important relations between the two distinctions.

In this present context one alleged defect of the will theory is its exclusion of some humans from the category of right-holders. This is because whilst all humans, and perhaps many classes of non-humans such as animals, have interests that ought to be protected, not all humans have the capacity to exercise choice. Children—along with the severely mentally disabled and the comatose—cannot thus, on the will theory, be the holders of rights. For at least one prominent defender of the interest theory, the fact that children evidently do have rights is sufficient to display the falsity of the will theory, thus making children a ‘test-case’ for the latter (MacCormick 1982). Of course, someone who is convinced of the correctness of the will theory might readily concede that the theory entails the denial of rights to children but see no reason to abandon the theory. For her, the entailment is not, ‘Children have rights. Therefore, the will theory is false’. It is, ‘The will theory is true. Therefore, children cannot have rights’.

The following seven statements set out the arguments for the conclusions of the two competing theories of rights. 1 – 4 sets out the argument for the negative conclusion of the will theory, and 5 – 7 set out the argument for the positive conclusion of the interest theory:

Rights are protected choices.
Only those capable of exercising choices can be right-holders.
Children are incapable of exercising choice.
Children are not right-holders.
Adults have duties to protect the important interests of children.
Rights and duties are correlative.
Children are right-holders.

(6) states an important view held by many that for each and every right there is a correlative duty. To say that I have a right to something is to say that someone else has a duty to me in respect of that thing. There may of course be some kinds of duties which do not correlate with any rights. Indeed, some critics of children’s rights will concede that adults have duties to protect important interests of children but deny that these interests correlate with rights held by children. (7) is thus true only insofar as the duties adults have in respect of children are such that they do correlate with rights held by children.

(3) is obviously a contestable, and contested, claim. But insofar as children cannot exercise choice and are required to do so on the will theory if they are to have rights, then it follows that they cannot have rights.

The upshot of setting the two theories out in this fashion is as follows: either children have rights, in which case the will theory cannot be true; or they do not, in which case that theory could be true.

However, a will theorist who did not want to deny that children have rights might resist affirming (2). This could be done by accepting that children are themselves incapable of exercising choice but allowing that children might have representatives or proxies, such as most obviously their parents or guardians, who could exercise the choices on behalf of the children. The representatives would choose for the children as the children would choose if they were capable of choosing for themselves. This proxy exercise of choice would take place only during the period when the children were incapable of exercising choice and in acknowledgment of the fact that the children will eventually be capable of exercising their own choices. The will theory’s most prominent defender (Hart 1973, 184 n.86) makes just such a modification of the will theory in respect of children.

Now such a modification must meet a number of challenges. First, how should the representatives be selected? Should those empowered to act as representatives be those who are most likely to choose as the children would choose if capable, or are there are other independent grounds on which they are selected—such as, most obviously, that they are the child’s parents? Second, if we think of such representation as a trust whose beneficiaries are children and whose trustees are the adults choosing for children, are the terms of the trust sufficiently clear and determinate? Is it, for instance, perspicuous and evident what a child would choose if capable of choosing? Note that the criterion is not what is in the best interests of the child for, consistent with the will theory, we must appeal to choices rather than interests. It is sometimes difficult to say what some adult who cannot currently choose—because she is, for instance, temporarily comatose—would choose if able. It is impossibly hard in the case of someone, a child, who is for the period of childhood simply incapable of making any choices. Third, how is the trust to be enforced and by whom? The representative may be presumed to have a duty to choose as the child would choose if able. If rights are correlative with duties then someone other than the representative and the child must be in a position to enforce or waive this duty. Could this be the state or its representative?

If the will theory can meet these formidable challenges, it can accord rights to children who are not then a straightforward ‘test-case’ for determining which theory of rights is correct. Moreover, the will theorist can make two further points. First, she might accept (6)—that rights and duties are correlative—but deny or at least significantly modify (5)—that adults have duties to protect the important interests of children. She could say that the duties that are rightly specified under (5) are not the duties that correlate with rights. This is just to say, as all rights theorists will repeatedly say, that rights do not exhaust the moral domain. What we are obligated to do because others have rights against us is not everything we must morally do. (6) asserts that for each and every right there is a correlate duty. It is not the eminently disputable claim that for each and every duty there is a correlate right. So, we should, as adults, ensure that the interests of children are protected and promoted. It would not follow that in consequence they have rights against us.

Second a will theorist might accept (5) and (6) as they stand but say that the rights which correlate with these duties are possessed not by the children but by adults who are in the best position to protect the children. Thus, even if the duties adults have in respect of children do correlate with rights it does not follow that the rights in question are held by those whose interests they protect. Indeed, it might be argued that it does not matter whether the rights are possessed by those whose interests they protect. Hillel Steiner thus asks rhetorically, Does it really matter whether the rights that correlate with adult duties to children are held by the children or by those who would act as best they could for the children? (Steiner 1998, 261).

This review of the will and interest theories has simply examined the issue of whether the denial of children’s rights can be thought of as a test case for the probity of the will theory. There may of course be other considerations that tell against the will theory and in favour of the interest theory; or the converse.

Grant that on either account of what it is to have a right children could, in principle, be the holders of rights. Ought children to have rights? And, if so, what rights should they have? Note that the rights can be moral or legal. Children do have rights in law (under the UN Convention most notably). These need not be accepted as moral rights. However, someone could believe that the best way, on balance, to protect the interests of children is by continuing to accord them the legal rights they have under something like the Convention. Someone might also believe that children should have legal rights but not those they are currently accorded. Conversely, if children do have moral rights, these need not be enshrined in law, although there would evidently be a strong presumption that they should. In the first instance, the question is whether children should have moral rights. If they should, then there would be a good case for thinking that these should be legally protected rights.

Those who claim that children should have all the rights that adults presently have are called ‘liberationists’ (to be discussed in the next section) and include Holt, Farson and Cohen (Farson 1974; Holt 1975; Cohen 1980). We can distinguish real from rhetorical liberationists. The latter are those who see the demand for equal rights for children as a means both of drawing attention to the discrimination that children suffer by comparison with adults in their treatment and for improving their condition. A rhetorical liberationist does not actually believe that children should be the equals of adults. Rather, he thinks that claiming as much is the best way of advancing their interests. A real liberationist does view children as the equals of adults. Then there are those who think that children should have some but not all of the rights which adults have. Finally, there are those who think that children should not have any rights. Or, put less brusquely, they are sceptical, for theoretical and political reasons, about attributing rights to children. Their case is made in three ways. The first is to assert what liberationists deny, namely that children are not qualified, as adults are, to have rights. The second is to argue that the ascription of rights to children is inappropriate because it displays a misunderstanding of what childhood is, what children are like, or what relationships children stand in to adults. The third is to argue that, notwithstanding their lack of rights, children can be assured of adequate moral protection by other means.

With respect to the first claim, the question of qualification is the question of whether children have the requisite capacity for rights. On the will theory of rights the relevant capacity qualifying children for possession of rights is that of the ability to choose. But there is a more general issue of capacity that is in dispute whatever theory of rights is defended and that follows from attention to the fact that rights have a content. Each right is a right to do, to be, or to have something. Arguably, only those rights can be possessed whose content can be appropriately attributed to their owners. A right to free speech cannot properly be possessed by an entity incapable of speech. One conventional way to think of rights in terms of their content is to distinguish between freedom rights (rights to choose, such as to vote, practise a religion, and to associate) and welfare rights (rights that protect important interests such as health).

Children in general lack certain cognitive abilities—to acquire and to process information in an ordered fashion, to form consistent and stable beliefs, to appreciate the significance of options and their consequences. They also lack certain volitional abilities—to form, retain and act in the light of consistent desires, and to make independent choices. Children are not unique amongst humans in this respect. Those adults who are seriously mentally impaired are also disqualified in this sense, which is of course just to say that these adults are childlike. Children are unique in the following regard. Not all humans are seriously mentally impaired, but all humans were once children. Thus every one of us was, during our early years, not qualified to be a holder of rights even if now we are so qualified.

It is worth distinguishing – as Schapiro (1999, 2003) does – between two ways in which a child is, relative to an adult, incapable. Schapiro argues that childhood is a ‘normative predicament’ wherein the child is in a state of nature, lacking any independent will whereby she might authoritatively and in her own voice order her desires. She is an ‘instinctual wanton’. On her account, the capacities a child lacks are not those of making good choices, but those of making any choices as such.

A child’s incapacity, in the senses indicated above, would seem to disqualify them from having liberty rights. Someone incapable of choosing cannot have a right whose content is a fundamental choice. If, as some maintain, all human rights are best interpreted as protecting human agency and its preconditions, then it would follow that those incapable of agency, such as young children, should not be accorded human rights (Griffin 2002). On the other hand, it could be maintained that, whilst children lack agency, they certainly have fundamental interests meriting protection and thus at least have welfare rights (Brighouse 2002). Moreover, it can be important to recognise that children become beings capable of making choices and that rights may be attributed in recognition of this gradual development (Brennan 2002).

The second claim that may be made in denying rights to children is that the ascription of rights to children is inappropriate because it displays a misunderstanding of what childhood is, of what children are like, or of what relationships children do or ought to stand in to adults. This claim comes in various forms.

On one view we should start our thinking about what morally we owe to children by specifying our obligations as adults to them (O’Neill 1988). There certainly exist what are called perfect obligations. These are obligations that are either owed to all children or to some specified set of children. They are perfect in that it is completely specified whom they are owed to and what is owed to them. We all are obliged not to maltreat any child, and parents have a particular duty to care for their children. But then there are imperfect obligations which are those of caring for children to whom we do not, as parents for instance, have specific obligations. All adults owe these, but they are not owed to all children (how could they possibly be?) nor is it specified what precisely is owed to them. The obligations are imperfect because which children we should care for is not specified nor is it specified precisely what is owed to them. Both are left to individual discretion, depending in part on circumstances.

Perhaps then we can agree that we are all under a duty to prevent the abuse of children. But clearly we cannot, as individuals, each act to stop every child being abused. Moreover what we ought to do—for instance, by reporting suspected cases of abuse—will depend on the circumstances, and also on what is in place by way of particular institutions and laws to deal with child abuse.

Crucially whilst perfect obligations correlate with rights, imperfect obligations do not. This means that anyone who starts and finishes thinking about what morally is owed to children in terms of their rights is unable to capture what imperfect obligations express. Yet this is to miss much of what is most important about the way in which, morally, we should as adults stand in relation to children. For the fulfilment of these imperfect duties of care and concern is what centrally protects and promotes the lives of children as children. Thinking ethically about children’s lives in terms of their putative rights is to misperceive what is of central importance and value in these lives.

One possible response to O’Neill’s argument is as follows (Coady 1992). She does not deny that perfect obligations correlate with rights. Thus, to the extent that we do have perfect obligations to children, they do have corresponding rights. Yet O’Neill denies that imperfect obligations correlate with rights. But why should we think that? The imperfect obligations are fundamental ones. They are not supererogatory, that is beyond duty. Adults must show consideration and kindness to children in general. So why cannot children claim such kindness and consideration from adults as their right? O’Neill does say that when imperfect obligations are institutionalised—when, for instance there are laws and institutions specifying who should act and how to detect and prevent child abuse—there are created positive special obligations to which correspond positive rights. But she adds that the obligations of, say, the social worker exceed the positive obligations associated with her job. However this is true of all our obligations, whether perfect or imperfect. A parent can have positive, that is legally recognised and sanctioned, duties to her child. Yet her perfect obligations to her children are not exhaustively specified by what the law requires of her.

O’Neill’s argument does not rely on any specification of the content of the obligations that might be owed by adults to children. Rather it is about the structure of our moral reasoning in respect of children, and the priority—false in the argument’s view—that is given to rights. As an argument it thus bears some comparison with a view that expresses general scepticism about rights in the context of adult-child relations and which emphasises the particular character of the family (Schrag 1980; Schoeman 1980). This view draws attention to the quality and nature of the relationships within a family. These are marked by an especial intimacy and by deep, unconditional love between its members. One can grant that many families do not conform to this ideal and yet acknowledge that when the family does conform to the ideal it is a distinctive, and distinctively valuable, form of human association.

What arguably follows from this ideal of the family is the inappropriateness of asserting or claiming rights. For to do so would be to subvert and ultimately destroy what constitutes the family as the distinctive form of human association it is. Appeal is being made here to a familiar and oft-drawn distinction between two ways in which individuals engaged in a common enterprise or bound together in some enduring association can be assured of their beneficent, or at least minimally good, treatment of one another. One way is by the recognition—in law or custom or shared morality—of rights that all individuals can claim, or by rules of justice—similarly and generally recognised—which provide an assurance of fair treatment. Another way is by reliance on the dispositions or attitudes that the individuals bound together have—spontaneously and naturally—towards one another. Thus, for instance, if each is motivated by general benevolence in respect of all then no one has any need to claim or assert what is due to him as of right or rule. In the case of the family, it is argued, neither justice nor benevolence suffices but love does. Of course children may have rights against those who are not family members (a right, for instance, that their school teachers provide them with information and skills). Some rights are held against particular individuals. Others, including the most important ones, are held against everyone, including parents and other family members

A further and quite distinct allegation is that not only is there no need for any such claims, but that allowing them to be made will erode, and in due course destroy, the dispositions and attitudes that rendered the need for rights and rules of justices unnecessary in the first place. This further claim is an influential one in the general critique communitarianism makes, within political philosophy, of what is characterised as a rights-based and individualistic liberalism (see, for instance, Sandel 1982, 32–5). In the context of the family the claim is that granting its members rights will subvert and bring about the end of the love between them that made rights superfluous in the first place.

The arguments considered thus far have appealed to the role that rights generally do and should play in our moral lives. A further argument considers what would actually follow from granting rights to children (Purdy 1992). The argument is that we need as adults to have acquired certain traits of character if we are to be able to pursue our goals and lead a valuable life. To acquire these traits it is essential that we not be allowed as children to make our own choices. Granting children the liberty to exercise rights is destructive of the preconditions for the possibility of having fulfilling adult lives. The central, and empirical, premise in this argument is that children do not spontaneously and naturally grow into adults. They need to be nurtured, supported, and, more particularly, subjected to control and discipline. Without that context giving children the rights that adults have is bad for the children. It is also bad for the adults they will turn into and for the society we share as adults and children.

The defence of the view that children should not, as the liberationist asserts, have all the rights that adults have has rested on the claims that, first, children lack the capacities that qualify adults for the possession of rights, and, second, that talk of children’s rights does not capture the truth about their lives or about the family or encourages a destructive permissiveness that has poor consequences for adults and their society. The third step in defence of the denial of rights to children is to provide reassurance that such a denial is not bad for children.

One can thus maintain that rights do not exhaust the moral domain. There are things we ought to do which do not correspond to the obligations we have as the correlates of rights. As adults we should protect and promote the welfare of children. It need not follow that they have rights against us.

To those who insist that children should, like other historically disadvantaged and discriminated groups, be emancipated by according them rights the reply (O’Neill 1988, 459– 463) is that such talk about rights talk misses what is distinctively different about children as a group. This is that childhood is not a permanently maintained status associated with oppression or discrimination. It is rather a stage of human development which all go through. Moreover the adults who deny that children do have rights may nevertheless also believe that it is their duty to ensure that the children for whom they have care do pass from childhood into adulthood.

The first claim in the defence of the denial of rights to children is that children are disqualified by virtue of their incapacity to have rights. Liberationists dispute this. Liberationists can allow that the key to the appropriateness of giving or not giving rights to children turns on capacity (Cohen 1980, ix). They will argue, however, that children are not disqualified from having rights by virtue of their lack of a capacity that adults do have. Note that on this view children are entitled to both welfare and freedom rights whereas those who concede that children lack the latter in virtue of a certain incapacity can still insist that they ought to have welfare rights where such an incapacity is not relevant. There are two respects in which this liberationist case might be modified or qualified. The first is in its scope. The liberationist might claim that all children are qualified to have rights, or she might claim only that some children are so qualified. The latter is the more plausible position in view of the fact that the very young infant is evidently incapacitated. Indeed some liberationists seem to recognise as much even whilst they insist that every child should have rights (Farson 1974, 31, 172, and 185). If the scope of the liberationist claim is thus limited it does not amount to the view that no line dividing human rights holders from humans who lack rights should be drawn. Rather it is the view that such a line has been drawn in the wrong place.

A second possible qualification of the liberationist view is that giving rights to children will play an important part in their acquiring the qualifying capacity. It is not thus argued that children are capable now and are illegitimately denied their rights. It is rather that they will only—or at least will more readily or will at an earlier stage—acquire that capacity if given their rights. The denial of rights to children is, on this account, one significant element in a culture that serves artificially to maintain children in their childlike state of dependence, vulnerability, and immaturity. Again the qualification can concede that children of a very young age are not capable enough to have rights, and will not acquire that capacity even if given rights. Yet it insists that the denial of rights to children of a certain age on account of their alleged incapacity is simply self-confirming. They cannot have rights because they are incapable but they are incapable only because they do not have these rights.

One plausible version of the claim refers to the facts of experience. Children, or at least children of a certain age, may not differ markedly from adults in respect of their cognitive and volitional capacities. They may be as capable as older humans of making their own minds up about what to do and be as independent in their resolution to act on their choices. But they may simply not have had as much experience of the world as their adult counterparts. Being thus naïve and inexperienced in the ways of the world they will not be as able, that is as qualified, as older (and wiser) humans are to make sensible choices. Grant that such a lack of experience can be attributed to a lack of opportunities to exercise choice. If such a lack of opportunity is in turn attributable not simply to not having been around for as long but to a denial of the freedom to make their own choices, then there is a powerful case for liberty rights being extended, even if cautiously, to these young people.

There are different ways in which the liberationist claim about capacity—whether qualified or not—can be made. One is by defending a ‘thin’ definition of capacity. For example it may be said that children can make choices if what this means is expressing preferences. Of course the response is that the ability to choose, thus minimally defined, is indeed possessed by children (even fairly young children), but it is not a capacity sufficient to qualify for rights ownership. What is needed for that is more than simply the ability to express or communicate a desire; what is needed is an ability to understand and appreciate the significance of the options facing one together with independence of choice. After all, the animal who moves from one feeding bowl to another may be said thereby to ‘choose’ the food in the latter bowl. But the animal does not have a general capacity of choice sufficient to qualify it as a holder of liberty rights.

Liberationists might move in the other direction and argue that the capacity which purportedly qualifies adults to have rights is in fact not a capacity that most, or perhaps any, adults possess. Thus, it will be said that no adult fully understands the nature of the choices she faces, nor is she consistent in her beliefs and desires, nor is she really independent of the influences of her environment and peers. Whether the liberationist urges a ‘thin’ definition of capacity—which the child satisfies as much as the adult—or argues that on a ‘thick’ definition of capacity neither adult nor child qualifies as capable, the point is the same. This is that the alleged differences between children and adults in respect of a qualifying capacity are not sufficient to warrant the ascription of rights to the latter and their denial to the former.

One way, then, to charge that age is an arbitrary means of distinguishing those qualified and those not qualified to have rights is that there is, in fact, no real division of capacities (Cohen 1980, 48). We should note that this claim can be supported by an ‘argument from marginal cases’, one that has been most influentially used in the case of animal rights. The argument in that context is that for whatever capacity is argued to distinguish the moral status of humans from animals there will be marginal cases – some humans will fail to possess it (Singer 1975, 265). In the present context, the argument would be that some older children display those abilities that supposedly distinguish children in general from adults (and some adults do not display those abilities that older children have). Whatever the merits of an argument from marginal cases the importance of being able to show that some children close to but below the age threshold (such as adolescents) do or do not merit the same treatment as other children is clear.

Another way to make the charge of arbitrariness turns on the idea that dividing lines as such—‘any’ lines—are arbitrary. Thus, either it will be said that this age is the wrong dividing point or that using any age is wrong. The first objection – ‘wrong age’- may concede that there is a better age to be used, just as the second objection – ‘age is wrong’ – may concede that there is a way, better than using age, to mark the division. The initial and obvious reply to the second objection is that age as such is not the issue but rather the reliable correlation of age with the acquisition of those capacities that qualify a person for the attribution of rights. Some liberationists may thus not dispute that there should be a threshold age—one beyond which adult rights are acquired—but think that the conventional or orthodox threshold is fixed too late. Liberationists may also simply deny that there should be any threshold on the grounds that there just is no difference between children and adults in respect of their respective capacities for any threshold age to mark. This version of the arbitrariness claim concedes that if age functions as a threshold it does so only inasmuch as it reliably correlates with the acquisition of capacities which are necessary qualifications for the possession of rights. In sum, the arbitrariness claim amounts either to the denial that the acquisition of the specified capacities does correlate with the threshold in question or to the denial that there is any age at which the capacities are acquired.

Setting aside this version of the arbitrariness claim, what remains of the charge that ‘[a]ny line which uses age to distinguish people with rights from people without can be shown to be arbitrary’? There are two ideas. The first is that although the threshold of age does serve to mark a difference within the class of human beings it is being human which is important. Or, relatedly, what is being distributed, namely rights, is so important that all humans should have them. It is being human which should make the difference not being of a certain age. Rights are too important to be denied to some humans on account of their (lesser) age and given to others on account of their (greater) age.

The reply is simple. Being human does matter and it is precisely because they are human beings, albeit young ones, that children are entitled to be treated in ways that non-humans may not. However, it is rights that are being distributed and to that end a threshold age does mark a significant point. Although having rights is better than not having them, those who lack rights do not lack any moral status whatever. Children are acknowledged to be humans meriting moral regard and yet to be young humans meriting a certain and age specific regard.

Some will still insist that a threshold age does not mark a significant enough difference. A 40-year-old differs greatly from a 4-year-old. Someone who is 18 years and 1 month does not differ greatly from someone who is 17 years and 11 months. It is understandable that the 40-year-old should have rights whereas the 4-year-old should not. But this is not the case for the latter pairing. This is a version of the marginal cases argument about the extent to which real differences between classes are displayed by the members of each class at the edge of these classes. The reply will be that the criticism concedes a difference between being too young to have rights and being old enough to have them. These differences are not arbitrary. Moreover, a threshold has to be fixed. The fact that there may not be significant—or significant enough—differences between the members of the two classes being distinguished at the edges of each class is the price one pays for having to operate with a threshold.

But is this price one that must be paid? The complaint is that age does not always reliably correlate with competence. Thus, using age may risk unfairly penalising some who are in fact competent just as it may risk unfairly rewarding some who are in fact incompetent. Moreover, the penalties and rewards in question—lacking or possessing rights—are far too important to run such risks. Why then should one not take each individual on her own and determine whether or not she is qualified to have rights?

The problems with the suggested use of a test are various. First, there is the sheer administrative scale of its employment in such a case as human rights. Second, there is the problem of agreeing on a determinate procedure for testing. How exactly are we to examine someone in respect of their competence to possess rights? Third, there is the problem of fairness. Any test must not unfairly disqualify some group of putative rights-holders by, for instance, having a bias in the testing procedure which, in effect, discriminates against that group. Fourth, the administration of any official test—and especially one whose passing yields such important goods—is subject to the risks of corruption or of misuse for the self-interested ends of those administering it. Again, this cannot be true of the use of age as a threshold. To summarise, these problems attaching to the use of a test are large and insuperable.

The counter-response to consider is that the burdens of any such test should be borne by the state inasmuch as there is a considerable risk of egregious wrong – the denial of rights – that is run by continuing only to use an age-based proxy for the existence of the relevant capacity (Godwin 2011, 286).

The charges of arbitrariness can be argued to be false or overstated. Children do differ from adults in respect of their competence to possess rights. A threshold of age may be the appropriate way to register that difference. One should, thus, acquire rights only on reaching a certain age. However, two riders to this summary are appropriate.

First, different rights may be acquired at different ages. After all, it is plausible to think that the capacities needed for, and qualifying a person to possess, different rights are themselves different. More particularly, different rights would seem to require different degrees of competence. Liberty rights entitle their possessors to make choices, and the matters in respect of which choices are made differ in their complexity, importance, and consequential impact. Those who are allowed to choose require greater or lesser amounts of maturity, independence, and deliberative proficiency in order to be able to make these different kinds of choice. The decisions to marry, consume alcohol, serve in the armed forces, undertake paid labour, vote, buy goods in a shop, travel unaccompanied, and open a bank account seem to presuppose different levels of understanding and autonomy. Assuming that these levels are progressively acquired at different ages, it makes sense to accord the corresponding rights not all at once but in stages.

Second, there should be an ordered but consistent acquisition of rights. If children are assumed to display the competence required for one kind of right, they should not be refused another kind of right which presupposes the same or even a lesser degree of ability. It would not make sense, for instance, to deny a young person the right to refuse medical treatment but allow them to choose to die in the armed services of their state.

The liberationist may make one last move. They may concede that children do lack the capacities that are a prerequisite for the possession of rights. However, they can suggest that children should be permitted ‘to borrow the capacities of others to secure whatever it is we are entitled to’ (Cohen 1980, 56). Child agents would advise their clients with a view to ensuring that the child’s right is properly exercised. However, to the various problems with the use of proxies or representatives, which have already been rehearsed in Section 1, we may add this question, Is the child still free to act or not on the advice given? If the child is not so free, then the role of the adviser is a strictly paternalist one, supplanting the child’s choice as to what is best for herself with her own choice. If on the other hand the child is free to reject the adviser’s advice, then the child is free to do what she wants anyway and the role of adviser is otiose and beside the point. One only needs to ‘borrow’ what one does not have. Not using what could be borrowed leaves one with the lack—and its consequences—that made the borrowing necessary. On the other hand, if a child can distinguish good from bad advice, then the borrowing is unnecessary. The child can give as good advice to herself as would be given to her by an adviser. But then no adviser is needed and this is precisely what Cohen denies.

Those who deny that children do have rights can, as O’Neill argues, believe that the interests of children are nevertheless adequately protected through adults’ discharging relevant obligations. Yet, for some, the value of rights is not adequately captured in this manner. Joel Feinberg, for instance, believes that the value of a right lies in those who possess it being able to claim from others what is specified as its content (Feinberg 1970).

If having rights does have a distinctive and special value in this kind of way, then it matters greatly that children can have at least some rights. What might these be? As indicated at the outset, children are humans. They have at least the right to life that all humans have. Nevertheless, children are not thought to have all the rights that adult humans do. Central amongst these rights is that of self-determination, that is, the right to make choices in respect of one’s own life. This right is the basis of derivative rights to marry, have sex, choose one’s work, purse a course of education, and so on.

Most who believe that adults have rights which children do not have make the cut between liberty and welfare rights. Feinberg distinguishes between rights that belong only to adults (A-rights), rights that are common to both adults and children (A-C-rights), and rights that children alone possess (C-rights) (Feinberg 1980). Thus, a common position is that the A-rights include, centrally, the liberty rights, and that the A-C-rights include, centrally, the welfare rights. To repeat, liberty rights are rights of choice (how and whether to vote, what to say publicly, whether to practise a religion and which one, which if any association to join, and so on), whereas welfare rights protect important interests (such as health, bodily integrity, and privacy).

What might be included in the C-rights? Feinberg distinguishes between two sub-classes of C-rights. There are, first, those rights which children possess in virtue of their condition of childishness. Although Feinberg does not further divide this first sub-class of C-rights, this can be done. There are the rights children have to receive those goods they are incapable of securing for themselves and are incapable of so doing because of their dependence upon adults. These goods might include food and shelter. There are, second, the rights to be protected against harms which befall children because of their childlike vulnerability and whose harmfulness is a function of a fact that they befall children. These harms might include abuse and neglect. Note that some adults might be argued to merit the same degree of rights-based protection on account of their childlike vulnerability and dependence.

Finally, there are goods that children should arguably receive just because they are children. Those who have written on children’s goods do so for two reasons: first, to answer the question of what, as a matter of justice, is owed to children; and, second, to answer the question of whether, and why if so, childhood is itself intrinsically valuable (Gheaus 2015; Macleod 2010). Note that goods may be valuable to both children and adults, but of especial value to the former; or only of value to children. Candidate goods include play and innocence.

However, the most central, and contentious, example is a child’s right to be loved. This is not an A-C-right but it is arguably a C-right, and indeed is cited by many as a C-right (MacCormick 1976, 305). Various declarations of children’s rights include such a right and a respectable case can be made to meet the various objections normally raised against its attribution (Liao 2015).

It is standard to classify the rights listed in the UNCRC under the three P’s: those of protection (for example, against abuse), of provision (for example, of education), and of participation (for example, to speak and to associate freely). Protection rights will be accorded to children but not to adults inasmuch the condition or state of childhood calls forth and requires this protection. Children, along with adults, have provision rights but the content of these will differ between them because of the form that children’s needs and circumstances take. Thus, grant that both children and adults have a welfare right to health care. In the case of children, but not that of adults’, paediatric care and treatment is appropriate. But that fact is no different in its significance from the fact that amongst different adults the proper form of health care should vary in line with their various disabilities, diseases, and circumstances.

The second sub-class of C-rights are those which Feinberg characterises as ‘rights-in-trust’ and which he thinks can be subsumed under the single title of a ‘right to an open future’. These are the rights given to the child in the person of the adult she will become. They are the rights whose protection ensures that, as an adult, she will be in a position to exercise her A- and A-C-rights to the maximal or at least to a very significant degree. They keep her future open. Such rights impose limits on the rights of parents and also impose duties on the part of the state to protect these rights.

A couple of things are worth noting about these rights-in-trust. First, Feinberg refers to these C-rights as ‘anticipatory autonomy rights’, which might suggest that they are only A-rights-in-trust. But he also speaks of rights-in-trust of class C as protecting those future interests a child will have as an adult. This implies that they are also anticipatory welfare rights (Feinberg 1980, 126–7). Hence this sub-class of C-rights ensures that the adult can later exercise both her A-rights (liberty) and her A-C-rights (welfare).

Second, there is the question of how open a child’s future should be. Some interpret the demand for an education for an ‘open future’ as requiring individuals to acquire ‘to the greatest possible extent’ the capacity to choose between ‘the widest possible variety of ways of life’ (Arneson and Shapiro 1996, 388). Arneson and Shapiro have pointed out several objections to such a ‘maximising’ interpretation. It may not be possible to quantify in a determinate fashion the number of options open to a future adult. Furthermore, some fulfilling life choices are only available at the expense of denying the child a number of otherwise possible choices. For instance, a child intensively trained to realise his considerable innate musical abilities may be unable to pursue careers that would have been open to him in the absence of such a dedicated education. The following further criticisms can be added. Requiring that a child be brought up to be able eventually to choose between as many options as possible may impose unreasonable burdens on parents. It also seems implausible to think that a child suffers if she is denied one or even several possible insignificant further options beyond some threshold number of choices. Is it really harmful to a child that she does not learn to play all of the orchestral instruments and is thereby denied the opportunity to pursue a solo career in those she does not? Finally, some future options are surely morally base or in some other respect without value (Mills 2003).

Feinberg does sometimes talk only of the harms of closing off significant life choices. Yet he does also on occasion employ the language of maximisation. ‘[Education] should send [the child] out into the adult world with as many open opportunities as possible, thus maximising his chances for self-fulfilment’. (1980, 135; see also 151). However, it seems much more plausible to suggest that a child should have enough autonomy to be able to make reasonable life choices. The preconditions of autonomy are both internal (a capacity to think for oneself, to acquire and appreciate relevant information, and a volitional ability to act independently) and external (the provision of a range of feasible and valuable options). In respect of both conditions, it is perfectly possible to have a good sense of what counts as adequate autonomy, even if there is no clear bright line marking the point of sufficiency.

Closely related to Feinberg’s idea of ‘rights-in-trust’ is Eekelaar’s idea of a child’s ‘developmental’ rights (Eekelaar 1986). These are the rights of a child to develop her potential so that she enters adulthood without disadvantage. Whereas Feinberg attributes the rights to the child’s adult-self, the child holding them only in ‘anticipatory’ form, Eekelaar attributes the rights to the adult’s child-self. Arguably, this makes no difference, since the child and the adult are one and the same person. Although this is a metaphysically contentious claim (Parfit 1984), grant that child and adult are merely distinct temporal stages of a single individual. Whether each temporal stage of the person has the same interest in the child developing into an adult is a further issue which will be considered shortly.

However, child and adult do stand in an asymmetrical relationship to one another in a way that does not seem to be true of the different temporal stages of the same adult. After all, adult Smith can now exercise her liberty rights in such a fashion that at a later time she is not able to exercise them and her welfare rights to the same degree as she can now. Smith can, for instance, choose now to enter into a slavery contract or to engage in a dangerous sport that risks death or serious disability. A child, on the other hand, is denied the right to make choices that will fetter the adult exercise of her rights.

This can be justified by distinct thoughts. First, a child, unlike an adult, simply lacks the ability to make considered choices and should not have liberty rights. An adult can make unwise choices but is presumed to possess a general minimal capacity to make choices, which the child lacks. Second, what is done or not done in childhood can affect or shape the whole of one’s later life and in a way that is largely irreversible. By contrast, an adult is in a better position to change the course of her life. Third, a child may be thought to have the formal deliberative abilities to make choices (knowing what is to be decided) but simply lack the life experiences to appreciate and properly understand those choices.

Fourth, in the specific case of an adolescent – who is legally a child but on the edge of and at the beginning of adulthood – they may be judged as autonomous but nevertheless at a ‘life stage’ which merits paternalistic denial of choices (Franklin-Hall 2013).

Now consider the case of a child who will not develop into an adult, say someone who is suffering from a terminal disease that will prevent her living beyond the age of majority. Such a child lacks developmental rights. Or rather, she has them, but her circumstances do not allow for their protection. However, she does still have welfare and protection rights whose correlate duties can be discharged. The child has an interest in not suffering harm and in enjoying a certain standard of life even if she never lives beyond her childhood.

When, for instance, we provide a child with health care or protect her from abuse we not only thereby serve her immediate interests as a child, but we also ensure that she will grow into a mentally and physically healthy adult. At its simplest, a child’s welfare right not to be killed is a precondition of the very possibility of there being a future adult with any rights at all. Even the education of a child can be represented as not merely of instrumental worth to the future adult but of value to the child here and now. A child has an interest now in learning things and does so independently of what this might later mean for her future adult self. (Coady 1992, 51).

The child with the terminal illness will not develop into an adult. Can we say of anybody that she has an interest, as a child, in developing into an adult, an interest that is frustrated by her terminal condition? Or is there an interest in only being a child and never becoming an adult? Grant that the child-Q and the adult-Q are two stages of one and the same individual. Could we speak of a conflict between the present interest of child-Q in staying a child and the future interest of adult-Q in child-Q developing into her later adult self? The latter interest seems perfectly straightforward. However, it is at least controversial whether everybody does have an interest in growing up. Earlier cited work on the putative goods of childhood can be used to argue that childhood as such has a value that adulthood does not, with the further questions arising of whether the former value exceeds the latter and of whether they can be compared at all (Gheaus 2015; Hannan 2018). It has also been argued that it would be better for human beings never to have been born (Benatar 2008). Even if this is not a general truth, it may be true of some humans that not growing into adulthood and ceasing to exist is better than becoming an adult. This might be true, for instance, of somebody facing the prospect of a life of unrelieved, extreme pain and misery. Could there be an interest—even without such a prospect—in being forever a child?

Such an interest cannot be physically satisfied in this world. It is satisfied in the fictional world of Peter Pan; but the author of that fantasy, J.M. Barrie, clearly deprecates his eponymous hero’s infantile desire to escape the realities of the world (Barrie 1995). If we only mean, by the imagined interest, remaining childish it is hard to see how any individual in our world could, if rational, have such an interest. It is one thing to be a child forever in a child’s world as Peter Pan is. It is quite another to remain a child in our adult world. Childhood is something best appreciated by the child. It is also something that needs to be left behind. In the words of Paul, ‘When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man I put away these childish things’ (I Corinthians 13:11).

If children are not thought to have the A-rights, and, chiefly, do not have the liberty rights to choose for themselves how to conduct their lives, nevertheless they are not morally abandoned to their own devices. In the first place, it is a standard principle of child welfare law and policy that the ‘best interests’ of a child should be promoted. Article 3.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that ‘In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration’ (United Nations 1989).

Second, Article 12.1 of the Convention asserts that, ‘States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child’ (United Nations 1989).

Section 9 discusses the right to be heard. This section discusses the best interest principle, henceforward the BIP. The discussion is brief for the following reason: Article 3 does not accord to children a right to have their best interests protected and promoted. Indeed, it does not use the word ‘right’. The Article does impose on States parties an obligation to ensure that all relevant organizations and legislative bodies make the best interests of children a relevant consideration. However, the BIP sits oddly besides the other enumerated rights.

Moreover, the BIP has been subject to numerous criticisms (Kopelman 1997; Parker 1994) and claims of ambiguity, chief amongst which are the following. First, the weight given to best interests can be variously specified, a choice between ‘primary’ or ‘paramount’ being a significant one which preoccupied those drafting the Convention. (Alston 1994 12). Second, there is an important difference between its use in respect of ‘a’ (that is some particular) child and of ‘children’ (as a class of humans). Third, it is implausible to view the BIP as requiring that one must act ‘so as to promote maximally the good’ of the child (Buchanan and Brock 1989, 10). Construed in literally maximising terms (rather than merely what is good enough), the BIP is unfeasibly demanding of agencies charged with the care of children. Fourth, the BIP does not, as it stands, take account of the interests of others. We cannot be required to promote the best interests of a child over and above, and without regard to, the interests of any relevant adult.

Fifth, the interpretation of ‘best interests’ is unclear: it could be specified as what a child would choose for herself under specified hypothetical circumstances; or what is, as a matter of fact, best for the child, an account which is distinct from and independent of the child’s desires, actual or hypothetical. If it is the latter then, some argue, we cannot with certainty determine what is best for a child. We cannot in practice make complete and accurate assessments of what will be the outcome of each and every policy option that we might adopt in respect of a child (Mnookin 1979). The BIP is indeterminate even where there are only two possible decisions to be made (Elster 1989, 134–139). Such indeterminacy is compounded and complicated by the fact of moral pluralism (Rawls 1993, xvi-xvii), whereby individuals subscribe to different conceptions of what makes life valuable. If we cannot agree how to rank as better or worse different kinds of life, we will not be able to agree what is better or best for the growing child. The fact of extensive disagreement about what is best for children, or for a child, is often set in the context of broader cultural disagreements about morality in general. It is said that the BIP is subverted, or at least rendered deeply problematic, by the existence of these deep and pervasive cultural disagreements (Alston (ed.) 1994).

If we understand the BIP in terms of a child’s hypothetical choices, the most striking and influential thought is that we should choose what is best for the child as the child would choose for herself if the child were adult. For instance, John Rawls thinks the following formulation defines the acceptable paternalism of a guardian’s treatment of his child: ‘We must choose for others as we have reason to believe they would choose for themselves if they were at the age of reason and deciding rationally’ (Rawls 1999, 183). This apparently simple formulation is in fact susceptible of at least two quite different interpretations, each of which brings with it its own problems. In each case, we are seeking to specify the adult person who chooses for the child.

We might, first, mean that we should choose for this child as the adult the child will become would choose. However, this does not determine a unique choice for, crucially, the nature of the adult that the child will become precisely depends on the choices that are made for it whilst a child. We can conceive of each of the different adult selves the child might develop into approving, respectively, of the different choices made for its childhood self—choices which were responsible for the development of these different selves. Or, second, the adult person who chooses for the child is an adult analogue of the child. This is not the child’s future adult self, which as we have seen is indeterminate, but this child made into an adult version of itself. That is, we do not imagine this child developing in the future into its adult self. Rather we imagine a mature or grown-up version of this child now making choices. This interpretation however will still not work. The adult version of the child is one with childish beliefs and desires filtered out. But, in the first place, it is not clear what remains of the child in any choice situation rendered hypothetical in this fashion. For the child just is someone who has these childish beliefs and desires. What is it to be a child if not to think and want as a child does? Second, it is entirely indeterminate what should replace these beliefs and desires.

However, in the case of children, by contrast with adults, we cannot cash out the various hypothetical conditionals. We do not know what a child would choose if possessed of adult rational powers of choice, because what makes a child a child just is its lack of such powers (its ignorance, inconstant wants, inconsistent beliefs, and limited powers of ratiocination). At the same time, we cannot ask how an adult would choose if in the child’s situation just because an adult would not be in that situation, or would not be in a child’s situation. We must, it seems, choose for a child because a child cannot choose for itself, and we must choose what is best for a child not what some imagined adult version of the child would choose for itself.

To repeat, the BIP, despite its importance, is not a child’s right. Moreover, as well as being beset by these various problems, it is also arguably in tension with some of the other rights a child has. In particular, the obligation to do what is best for the child stands against an obligation to give serious consideration to a child’s own view of what is in their interests. This requirement is discussed in Section 9.

The putative possession by a child of a right to an ‘open future’ together with the imperative to promote any child’s best interests raises the question of what, if anything, is wrong with the transmission to a child of values. These most obviously may be those values by which the child’s parent lives and which may also help to define the identity of a community. Article 2 of the UNCRC accords the child a right to non-discrimination on various grounds including ‘national, ethnic or social origin’; and Article 30 recognises that a child belonging to an ‘ethnic, religious or linguistic’ minority ‘shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language’.

Yet, for many liberals, there is a tension between the recognition of such rights and the requirement that a child not be inducted into a community in such a manner that his or her future adult choices are constrained. The main way in which this is set out is by means of an emphasis upon a liberal ideal of an autonomous life, one in which an individual is able both to form his or her own conception of the good life to lead and is not prevented – by external social circumstances or the actions of others – from being able to lead the preferred life. Often the target that is juxtaposed to such a liberal ideal is the values of religious minorities. The Supreme Court judgment that prompted Joel Feinberg’s defence of a child’s right to an ‘open future’, and which has been extensively discussed, is Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). This exempted the Amish community from the requirement to keep their children in school to the age others are so required in the interests of maintaining that community’s identity. Arneson and Shapiro in response contrast ‘religious traditionalist’ and ‘secular worldly’ ways of life, seeing an education for the latter as the best preparation for an open future (Arneson and Shapiro 1996).

The problem with this approach is that the preferential treatment – in the way that children are schooled – is both discriminatory and may violate the central precept of liberal neutrality, the requirement that the state not, in its law and policies, favour any conception of the good (see the entry on Perfectionism in Moral and Political Philosophy). Moreover, some liberals will argue that the character traits and dispositions of autonomy, for instance steadfastness of character, are best taught by being raised in adherence to a particular way of life, such as one of religious faith (Callan, 2002; Burtt 1996).

Liberals may escape the charge of violating the principle of neutrality by arguing that a liberal society requires that its citizens be motivated by a sense of justice and an ability to participate effectively within democratic institutions. This requirement is satisfied only if children are brought up in certain values and are able, when adults, to make maximally autonomous choices. In this manner the promotion of autonomy and an open future can be seen as an indirect consequence of a necessary education in those civic capacities that are the necessary precondition of stable and sustainable liberal institutions.

The tension that is broached by a child’s right to an open future is given a clear and provocative reading in Matthew Clayton’s book (Clayton 2006). He argues that parents may not ‘enrol their children into comprehensive doctrines’, in other words, bring them up to believe in general truths about the best way to lead a life, whatever the provenance of those truths. Thus, his view is broader than a critique of a religious education. But at the same time, it would indict the vast majority of conscientious parents seeking to bring up their children as they see best.

His defence of this view relies on a claimed analogy between the exercises of political and of parental power. The former is only legitimate on liberal grounds in the absence of any appeal to the correctness of some comprehensive doctrine. Clayton thinks that the similarities between the two exercises of power are sufficiently strong and robust for parental conduct to be constrained by the same liberal principle of legitimacy.

In response it may be argued that the two domains of power are not analogous. It may also be suggested that there is a morally relevant difference between parents setting out to enrol their children in a comprehensive doctrine and children coming to share such a doctrine because of sharing their life with their parents (Archard 2002). Indeed, if the institution of the family as an essentially intimate and private community of adults and children can be defended and if, further, adults have a protected right to lead their lives by the light of their preferred conception of the good, then such unintended enrolment is inevitable. Others will argue that it is not possible to teach children that sense of justice which liberals see as critical to the sustainability of a fair society without embedding it in a comprehensive doctrine (Franklin-Hall 2019).

It is of course a further question of whether certain communal values violate liberal values other than autonomy – such as equality. For example, it would be wrong to rear boys and girls in gendered stereotypes that perpetuate inequality and discrimination.

The right to be heard is a valuable right. What makes it valuable is both that there is a point to making one’s views known and, further, that making one’s views known makes a difference. It matters to me that I can speak out on political questions. It matters also, and probably more, if what I say leads to the changes I favour. Correlatively, it is true both that I do not want to be silenced and that I do not want the statement of my views to be ineffectual. As a further general point there will always be some issues on which it is more important that I be allowed to speak and that what I say about these issues carries weight in determining outcomes. Those are the issues that matter to me, and the more they matter the more important it is that I have the freedom to speak about them and be heard. On one account, since children’s views should not be ‘authoritative’, that is, determinative of what is done, they have only a ‘consultative’ role (Brighouse 2003). They may influence an outcome by, most obviously, providing those who do make the decisions affecting a child’s interests with a clearer picture of what in fact is in those interests. On another account, encouraging and according a weight to the expression of children’s views—even where this is unlikely to affect outcomes in line with the views’ content—is valuable just because the child is capable of expressing a view and deserves to be listened to (Archard and Skivenes 2009).

How is it with the child’s right to be heard? It will be important for the child to be listened to. But it is also important that the child is heard in the sense that her views are given due consideration and may influence what is done. Note that the child’s right to be heard on matters affecting its own interests is a substitute for the liberty right to make one’s own choices. The right to be heard is only a right to have the opportunity to influence the person who will otherwise choose for the child. The power to make those choices resides with the adult guardian or representative of the child. All the child retains is the right to try to motivate that adult to choose as the child herself would choose if she was allowed to.

Article 12.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child not only accords the child the right freely to express its views on matters affecting the child. It also, and crucially, gives the child an assurance that these views will be given ‘due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child’. Great emphasis is now placed on what are termed a child’s ‘participation rights’ as opposed to his or her ‘protection rights’. The latter, as the name suggests, protect the child from violent, abusive, cruel or exploitative treatment. ‘Participation rights by contrast, give children some entitlement to be the agents of their own lives. Article 12.1 provides a crucial underpinning justification for such rights. There are problems in understanding how practically to implement such rights (Ang, et al. 2006). There are also theoretical issues in making precise sense of what a right such as that enshrined in Article 12.1 might mean. Its complexities lie in understanding the difference between an adult’s power of choice and a child’s views on critical personal matters, in the different ways we might consider a child’s views, in how to weight those views and how their weighting makes a practical difference in coming to a decision (Archard and Uniacke 2020).

The celebrated British legal judgement in the Gillick case (Gillick [1986]) provides a useful contrast to Article 12. This judgement has been extensively discussed, and it has also been highly influential in matters relating to the consent of children to medical treatment.

The Gillick judgement arose from the dissatisfaction of a mother with the failure of her local health authority to withdraw an advisory circular to the area’s doctors. This advised doctors that they could counsel and inform young girls under the age of 16 about sexual matters as well as provide them with contraception, and that they could do this without the consent of the child’s parents. The mother, Victoria Gillick, went to court to have the circular declared unlawful. The final judgement by the British House of Lords was that the circular was not unlawful. A key issue, relevant to the present discussion, concerned the proper relationship between the child’s right to decide for itself and the parent’s right to decide for the child.

In deciding in favour of the health authority one of the Law Lords, Lord Scarman, made a statement crucial to his finding and one that has subsequently been much cited. It is worth reproducing:

The underlying principle of the law … is that parental right yields to the child’s right to make his own decisions when he reaches a sufficient understanding and intelligence to be capable of making up his own mind on the matter requiring decision. (Gilick [1986], 186) I would hold that as a matter of law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of 16 will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves a sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable him to understand fully what is proposed. (Gillick [1986], 188–9)

Various questions arise. First, what does it mean for a child to get to a particular point in their development? On what could be called the threshold interpretation, once a child has achieved a certain level of competence, her views as to what shall happen to her have a determinate weight, either amounting to a liberty right of choice (on a strong version) or (on a weak version) being counted in the balance against her parents’ views and the state’s judgement of her best interests. On what could be called the proportionality interpretation, the child’s views progressively increase in weight as she gains a greater competence to choose for herself. They increase up to the acquisition of a full liberty right of choice.

Second, on either the threshold or the proportionality account we need a measure of that ability that marks the threshold or is simply progressively acquired. How much intelligence and understanding, for instance, is sufficient? In the first place, this measure must be taken independently of any judgement of what is in the child’s best interest. That a child would choose what is taken to be in her best interests is at most evidence that she does have sufficient intelligence and understanding of the relevant issue. Her making such a choice is not a necessary condition of her having the requisite ability. Similarly, the making by a child of a poor choice is not conclusive evidence of her general incapacity to choose for herself. Wise adults can occasionally make stupid decisions just as fools sometimes get it right.

In the Gillick judgement, Scarman required of the child that she manifest an understanding of the ‘nature’ of the contraceptive advice offered and ‘also have a sufficient maturity to understand what is involved’ (Gillick [1986], 189). We can distinguish here a number of possible elements. There is, first, knowledge of certain facts. One child, for instance, knows that a contraceptive acts to prevent conception that might otherwise result from sexual intercourse. Another child, by contrast, could simply be ignorant of or unable to comprehend the facts of reproduction. There is, second, an understanding of what follows for the child from an act or its omission. Thus, failure to use a contraceptive could lead a young person who had sexual intercourse to become pregnant. These two understandings together constitute knowledge of the ‘nature’ of the act. Finally, there is what arguably comes with ‘maturity’ which is the ability to appreciate the significance both of an act or its omission and of the relevant consequences. It is one thing to know what it is to become pregnant, and another to understand what that means. This latter understanding involves realising that pregnancy brings in its wake physical changes, that any resultant birth leaves a young person with a child to care for, and so on. Scarman even insisted that the child would need to have an appreciation of the ‘moral and family’ questions involved.

Third, it is important in measuring a child’s competence against that in respect of which he or she is expressing a view to distinguish between the complexity and the seriousness of the matter. A simple choice—for instance that between only two options such as whether to have a life-saving operation—may nevertheless be portentous, having enormous and far-reaching consequences. It may thus require much greater appreciation of what is involved than a more complex decision, one that ranges over many possibilities. Yet the latter kind of choice—consider choosing a five-course meal from a very large menu—is far less serious in its consequences. In short, the difficulty or complexity of a choice should not be confused with its importance or significance for the child.

Fourth, the English courts at least have detected a fundamental asymmetry between refusing and choosing to have treatment. A competent adult has a right both to choose to have treatment and to refuse it. Should this not also be the case with a competent child? A 15-year-old who wants to have a particular operation against her parents’ wishes and even contrary to the best judgement of her doctors may be judged competent and thus have her wishes respected. However, the English courts in a series of judgements after Gillick have argued that matters are somehow different when it is a case of a child refusing an operation.

Of course, there is no inconsistency if a refusal requires a greater degree of understanding and appreciation of the issues than a positive acceptance. But where the choice is a simple disjunction, it is hard to see how this can be the case. Are not the issues at stake the same for both disjuncts? If the courts believe that an obligation to act in the best interests of the child trumps one to respect the wishes of a competent child, it needs to be shown why this obligation does not have force in all circumstances. Why would a court not deny treatment to a child it does not believe in her best interests when it judges her competent to choose? If a child is competent then she is in all significant and relevant respects the equal of an adult and should be able both to choose and to refuse treatment.

Three final comments on the child’s right to choose are in order. First, what is deemed to be in the child’s best interests is evidence for, but not finally determinative of, a judgement as to the competence of the child. Nevertheless, balancing a child’s right to be heard against a child’s right to have its best interests promoted is difficult. Second, it is arguably enough to show a child’s competence that a child understands the nature of the act. After all, no more is needed for an adult’s consent to be informed. In the law of contract adults need only to know what they are signing up to. They do not need a full appreciation of the contract’s significance and of its import for their future lives. Third, Gillick competence as specified is very demanding. Indeed, there are many adults who, in making their choices, fail to display the maturity and ‘understanding of what is involved’ that is dictated as necessary for the child. Why then should a child have to display a competence that many adults lack both in general and in particular cases?

One important, indeed central, manner of understanding the moral status of the child is by questioning whether or not children have rights. It is normally thought that according to the ‘will’ theory of rights children cannot have rights, whereas according to the ‘interest’ theory they can. It is, however, at least possible on the ‘will’ theory that children could have rights, albeit ones that are exercised by trustees or representatives.

Child ‘liberationists’ claim that children have all the rights that adults do. Others deny this, either believing that children have no rights or believing that children have only some of the rights which adults possess. Those who believe children have no rights deny that children are qualified as adults are to have rights. They further argue that the ascription of rights to children manifests a misunderstanding of what children are like and of the nature of family relationships. Those who deny children all or some of the rights possessed by adults nevertheless believe that children, as humans, have a certain moral status that ought to be protected.

Those who say that drawing a line between adults and children in respect of their possession of rights is arbitrary may mean different things. To deny that different capacities are progressively acquired at different ages is implausible. To insist that drawing a line as such is wrong ignores the point of doing so, and recourse to the alternative of a competency test is not appropriate or practicable. On the standard view, children have welfare but not liberty rights, whereas adults have both. Adults also have the right that their childhood selves shall grow up to be adults of a certain sort. Children do not have an interest in remaining in childhood.

The best-interest principle with all its problems of interpretation sits oddly alongside the rights that are accorded to the child, especially that of a right to be heard in matters affecting its interests. This right in turn is a substitute not a complement to the right of choosing for oneself, and the Gillick competence which qualifies a child to exercise its rights of decision-making is arguably stringently defined.

Alston, P. (ed.), 1994, The Best Interests of the Child: Reconciling Culture and Human Rights , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ang, F., et al., 2006, Participation Rights of Children , Antwerpen-Oxford: Intersentia.
Archard, D., 2002, ‘Children, Multiculturalism, and Education’, in D. Archard and C. Macleod (eds.), The Moral and Political Status of Children , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 142–159.
Archard, D., 2015, Children: Rights and Childhood , 3rd revised and enlarged edition, London: Routledge.
Archard, D. and M. Skivenes, 2009, ‘Balancing a Child’s Best Interests and a Child’s Views,’ International Journal of Children’s Rights , 17: 1–21.
Archard, D, and J. Tobin, 2015, ‘Article 1: The Definition of a Child’, in J. Tobin (ed.), The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child , A Commentary , Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 1.
Archard, D. and S. Uniacke, 2020, ‘The Child’s Right to a Voice,’ Res Publica 4: 1–16.
Arneson, R.J. and I, Shapiro, 1996, ‘Democratic Autonomy and Religious Freedom: A Critique of Wisconsin v. Yoder’, in I. Shapiro and R. Hardin (eds.), NOMOS 38: Political Order , New York: New York University Press, pp. 365–411.
Barrie, J.M.,1995, Peter Pan and Other Plays , edited with an Introduction by Peter Hollindale, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beckman, L., 2001, ‘Rights, Rights-Talk, and Children’, The Journal of Value Inquiry , 35: 509–515.
Benatar, D., 2008, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brennan, S., 2002, ‘Children’s Choices or Children’s Interests: Which do their Rights Protect?’ in D. Archard and C. Macleod (eds.), T he Moral and Political Status of Children: New Essays , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 53–69.
Brighouse, H., 2002, ‘What Rights (if any) do Children Have?’ in D. Archard and C. Macleod (eds.), The Moral and Political Status of Children: New Essays , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 31–52.
–––, 2003, ‘How Should Children Be Heard?’ Arizona Law Review , 45: 691–711.
Buchanan, Allen E. and Dan W. Brock, 1998. Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burtt, S., 1996, ‘In Defence of Yoder: Parental Authority and the Public Schools,’ in I. Shapiro and R. Hardin (eds.), NOMOS 38: Political Order , New York: New York University Press, pp. 412–437.
Callan, E., 2002, ‘Autonomy, Child-Rearing, and Good Lives’, in D. Archard and C. Macleod (eds.), The Moral and Political Status of Children: New Essays , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 118–141.
Clayton, M., 2006, Justice and Legitimacy in Upbringing , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coady, C.A.J., 1992, ‘Theory, Rights and Children: A Comment on O’Neill and Campbell’, in P. Alston, S. Parker, and J. Seymour (eds.), Children, Rights and the Law , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 43–51.
Cohen, H., 1980, Equal Rights for Children , Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, and Co.
Cowden, M., 2012, ‘Capacity, claims and children’s rights’, Contemporary Political Theory , 1: 362–380.
Eekelaar, J., 1986, ‘The Emergence of Children’s Rights’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 6: 161–182.
Elster, J., 1989, Solomonic Judgements, Studies in the Limitations of Rationality , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Farson, R., 1974, Birthrights , London: Collier Macmillan.
Feinberg, J., 1970, ‘The Nature and Value of Rights’, Journal of Value Inquiry , 4: 243–260.
–––, 1980, ‘A Child’s Right to an Open Future’, in W. Aiken and H. LaFollette (eds.), Whose Child? Parental Rights, Parental Authority and State Power , Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, and Co., pp. 124–153.
–––, 1987, ‘Wrongful Life and the Counterfactual Element in Harming,’ Social Philosophy and Policy , 4 (1): 145–170.
Franklin-Hall, A., 2013, ‘On Becoming an Adult: Autonomy and the Moral Relevance of Life’s Stages’, Philosophical Quarterly , 63: 223–247.
–––, 2019, ‘What Parents May Teach Their Children: A Defense of Perfectionism in Childrearing,’ Social Theory and Practice , 45 (3): 371–396.
Gheaus, A., 2015, ‘The “Intrinsic Goods of Childhood” and the Just Society’, in A. Bagattini and C. Macleod (eds.), The Nature of Children’s Well-Being : Theory and Practice , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 35–53.
Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority , House of Lords, [1986] 1 AC 112.
Godwin, S. 201, ‘Children’s Oppression, Rights, and Liberation,’ Northwestern Interdisciplinary Law Review , 4 (1): 247–302.
Griffin, J., 2002, ‘Do Children Have Rights?’ in D. Archard and C. Macleod (eds.) The Moral and Political Status of Children: New Essays , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 19–30.
Hannan, S., 2018, ‘Why Childhood is Bad for Children?’ Journal of Applied Philosophy , 35: 11–28.
Hart, H.L.A., 1973, ‘Bentham on Legal Rights’, in A. W. Simpson (ed.), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence , 2nd series, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 171–201.
Holt, J.C., 1975, Escape from Childhood: The Needs and Rights of Children , Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Kopelman, L.M., 1997, ‘The Best-Interests Standard as Threshold, Ideal, and Standard of Reasonableness’, The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy , 22: 271–289.
Kramer, M.H., 1998, ‘Rights Without Trimmings’, in M.H. Kramer, N. Simmonds and H. Steiner, A Debate Over Rights, Philosophical Enquiries , Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 7–111.
Kramer, M.H., Simmonds, N.E. and Steiner, H., 1998, A Debate Over Rights, Philosophical Enquiries , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
LeBlanc, Lawrence J., 1995, The Convention on the Rights of the Child. United Nations Lawmaking on Human Rights , Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Liao, S.M., 2015, The Right to be Loved , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Macleod, C., 2010, ‘Primary goods, capabilities, and childhood’, in H. Brighouse and I. Robeyns (eds.), Measuring Justice: Primary Goods and Capabilities , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 174–192.
MacCormick, N., 1982, ’Children’s Rights: A Test-Case’, in his Legal Right and Social Democracy , Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 154–166.
McGough, Lucy S., 1995, ‘Children: V Child Custody’, in W.T. Reich, Editor in Chief, Encyclopedia of Bioethics , revised edition, New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan:, pp. 371–78.
Mills, Claudia, 2003, ‘The Child’s Right to an Open Future?’ J ournal of Social Philosophy , 34 (4): 499–509.
Mnookin, Robert H., 1979, ‘Foster Care—In Whose Best Interests?’in O. O’Neill and W. Ruddick (eds.), Having Children: Philosophical and Legal Reflections on Parenthood , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 179–213.
Nozick, R., 1974, Anarchy, State, and Utopia , Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
O’Neill. O., 1988, ‘Children’s Rights and Children’s Lives’, Ethics , 98: 445–463.
Parker, S., 1994, ‘The Best Interests of the Child – Principles and Problems’, in P. Alston (ed.), The Best Interests of the Child , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Purdy, L.M., 1992, In Their Best Interest? The Case Against Equal Rights for Children , Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Rawls, J., 1993, Political Liberalism , New York: Columbia University Press.
–––, 1999, A Theory of Justice , revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Raz, J., 1984, ‘Legal Rights’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 4 (1): 1–21.
Sandel, M., 1982, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schapiro, T., 1999, ‘What is a Child?’ Ethics , 109 (4): 715–738.
–––, 2003, ‘Childhood and Personhood’, Arizona Law Review , 45: 575–594.
Schoeman, F., 1980, ‘Rights of Families: Rights of Parents, and the Moral Basis of the Family’, Ethics , 91: 6–19.
Schrag, F., 1980, ‘Children: Their Rights and Needs’, in W. Aiken and H. LaFollette, Whose Child? Parental Rights, Parental Authority and State Power , Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, and Co., pp. 237–253.
Singer, P., 1975, Animal Liberation , New York: New York Review.
Steiner, H., 1994, An Essay on Rights , Oxford: Blackwell.
–––, 1998, ‘Working Rights’, in M.H. Kramer, N. Simmonds and H. Steiner, A Debate Over Rights: Philosophical Enquiries , Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 235–301.
Steinhoff, U. (ed.), 2015, Do All Persons Have Equal Moral Worth? On “Basic Equality” and Equal Respect and Concern , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sumner, L.W., 1987, The Moral Foundation of Rights , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
United Nations, 1989, The Convention on the Rights of the Child , reprinted in P. Alston, S. Parker and J. Seymour (eds.), Children, Rights and the Law , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 245–264; and in L. LeBlanc, The Convention on the Rights of the Child. United Nations Lawmaking on Human Rights , Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 293–316.
Wisconsin v Yoder [1972] 406 U.S. 205.
Aiken, W. and LaFollette, H. (eds.), 1980, Whose Child? Parental Rights, Parental Authority and State Power , Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
Alston, P., Parker, S., and Seymour, J. (eds.), 1992, Children, Rights and the Law , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Archard, D. and Macleod, C. (eds.), 2002, The Moral and Political Status of Children: New Essays , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bagattini, A. and Macleod, C. (eds.), 2015, The Nature of Children’s Well-Being, Theory and Practice , Dordrecht: Springer.
Blustein, J., 1982, Parents and Children: The Ethics of the Family , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brennan, S. and Noggle, R., 1997, ‘The Moral Status of Children: Children’s Rights, Parents’ Rights, and Family Justice’, Social Theory and Practice , 23: 1–26.
Brighouse, H, and Swift, A., 2014, Family Values: The Ethics of Parent-Child Relationships , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gheaus, A., Calder, G., and Wispeleare, J. de (eds.), 2019, Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Childhood and Children , London: Routledge.
Kleinig, J., 1976, ‘Mill, Children, and Rights’, Educational Philosophy and Theory , 8(1): 1–16.
O’Neill, O. and Ruddick, W. (eds.), 1979, Having Children: Philosophical and Legal Reflections on Parenthood , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scarre, G., (ed.), 1989, Children, Parents, and Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomlin, P. 2018, ‘Saplings or Caterpillars? Trying to Understand Children’s Well-Being’, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 35 (1): 29–46.
Turner, S.M. and Matthews, G.B., eds., 1998, The Philosopher’s Child , Rochester: University of Rochester.
Wald, M., 1979, ‘Children’s Rights: A Framework for Analysis’, University of California at Davis Law Review , 12 (2): 255–282.
Worsfold, V.L., 1974, ‘A Philosophical Justification for Children’s Rights’, Harvard Educational Review , 44 (1): 142–57.
Wringe, C., 1981, Children’s Rights , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Children’s Rights , at Human Rights Watch.
Children’s Rights , maintained by the Legal Information Institute (Cornell Law School)
Convention on the Rights of the Child , at the UNICEF web site.

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Brill | Nijhoff

Brill | Wageningen Academic

Brill Germany / Austria

Böhlau

Brill | Fink

Brill | mentis

Brill | Schöningh

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

V&R unipress

Open Access

Open Access for Authors

Open Access and Research Funding

Open Access for Librarians

Open Access for Academic Societies

Discover Brill’s Open Access Content

Organization

Stay updated

Corporate Social Responsiblity

Investor Relations

Policies, rights & permissions

Review a Brill Book

Author Portal

How to publish with Brill: Files & Guides

Fonts, Scripts and Unicode

Publication Ethics & COPE Compliance

Data Sharing Policy

Brill MyBook

Ordering from Brill

Author Newsletter

Piracy Reporting Form

Sales Managers and Sales Contacts

Ordering From Brill

Titles No Longer Published by Brill

Catalogs, Flyers and Price Lists

E-Book Collections Title Lists and MARC Records

How to Manage your Online Holdings

LibLynx Access Management

Discovery Services

KBART Files

MARC Records

Online User and Order Help

Rights and Permissions

Latest Key Figures

Latest Financial Press Releases and Reports

Annual General Meeting of Shareholders

Share Information

Specialty Products

Press and Reviews

Share link with colleague or librarian

Stay informed about this journal!

Get New Issue Alerts
Get Advance Article alerts
Get Citation Alerts

Children’s Views on Children’s Rights: A Systematic Literature Review

Children’s rights are set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This systematic literature review aimed to investigate children’s views of children’s rights, at a broad level. Nine papers were included, from a range of countries and contexts. They all accessed the views of children and young people (aged up to 18 years). A content analysis was carried out using a recursive process of hybrid aggregative-configurative synthesis, and themes within children’s views and factors that may affect these were identified. These were ‘awareness of rights’, ‘value placed on (importance of) rights’, ‘impact of having/not having rights fulfilled’, ‘realisation and respect of rights’, ‘equality of rights’, ‘identifying and categorising of rights’, and ‘factors that may affect children’s views’. These were developed into a progression of rights realisation and implications for practice and further research were considered.

1 Introduction

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ( uncrc ) sets out rights of every child, consisting of 54 Articles which include civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights for all children (Save the Children, n.d.-b ; unicef , 2005 ; United Nations, 1989 ). Further to the specific Articles of the uncrc , there are four overarching core principles: of non-discrimination, devotion to the best interests of the child, the rights to life, survival and development, and respect for the views of the child (often referenced as participation or “children’s voice”) ( United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2003 ; Woods and Bond, 2014 ). Notably, however, the conceptualisation and integration of these “general principles” at their foundation within the uncrc has been shown to be weak ( Hanson and Lundy, 2017 ). Whilst this review does not take a specific focus on the participation principle, often specifically related to Articles 12–17, it does relate to the rationale of this review which has a focus upon children’s views of their rights. Since the uncrc has been established, significant amounts of scholarly, research and practitioner attention has focused upon this ( Anderson and Graham, 2016 ; Quennerstedt and Moody, 2020 ; Sargeant and Gillett-Swan, 2015 ; Wyse, 2001 ).

Since the adoption of the uncrc , the principles have frequently been divided into three groups (often known as the 3 Ps), of provision, protection and participation ( Hammarberg, 1990 ; Thomas, 2011 ). Quennerstedt (2010: 633) argues that these in fact have a hampering effect and suggests ‘constructing what children’s rights are about from a general human rights language of civil, political and social rights will form a better base for research’.

The “3Ps”, the four guiding principles, and the 54 Articles have created much research and critical debate both from children’s rights scholars and from those working within the framework of the uncrc ( Hanson and Lundy, 2017 ). Byrne and Lundy (2019) , focusing on creation of rights-based policy, described the comprehensiveness of the uncrc as one of its many advantages, but also noted that even from the four principles, there tends to be a focus on two of these (best interests and participation), arguably distorting overall understanding. Prior to the adoption of the uncrc , Melton (1980) carried out research to find out children’s perspectives on children’s rights, noting that ‘until the present study, no one had even asked children what they think about their rights’ ( Melton, 1980 : 186), and without the framework of the uncrc focus, this was researched more generally, and found that age, stage of cognitive development and ses status affected children’s concepts of their rights and also their attitudes towards them.

Further to this, and perhaps as further evidence to the poor integration of the principles of the uncrc to its provisions ( Hanson and Lundy, 2017 ), it is documented that children were not directly involved to any significant extent in the drafting of the uncrc , which seems somewhat paradoxical to the principle of participation ( Lundy et al. , 2015 ) and Lundy et al. (2015) speculate upon the question of what might have been the consequences had children been involved in the drafting process. It has been been established that, when listened to, children are good reporters ( unicef , 2012 ) and that, following Melton and Limber (1992) , adults will only comprehensively identify what is important to children by being aware of their views ( Taylor et al. , 2001 ).

How do children conceive of the notion of rights? What do they think their rights should be? Are they aware of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? Do they feel that they have a say in making decisions (Article 12)? Do they want participatory rights? Does it ultimately matter what they think?

At this time, she recognised this as a growing area, as did Taylor et al. (2001) , who nevertheless identified a scarcity of studies exploring views of children and young people ( cyp ) on their rights, and how these may differ from adults. This research took place in New Zealand with a focus on awareness and understanding of rights. The authors summarised what had been found about children’s views, and factors that may affect these, including age, socioeconomic status, cultural background, ethnicity; they also indicated that previous studies suggested significant percentages of children were not familiar with the uncrc . Similarly, Alderson (2000) found more than three quarters of pupils surveyed had not heard about the uncrc , and most of the others had heard only a small amount. This is despite Article 42 which states that children, young people and adults should know about the Convention and steps should be taken to achieve this ( United Nations, 1989 ). Taylor et al. (2001) recognised the potential role of schools as places for both pupils and staff to develop understanding of rights.

The complexity of the uncrc is identified as a barrier (for adults) to implementing a child-rights approach ( Williams, 2017 ) and is clearly not a simple document for children to access, even with an understanding that children can cope and engage with complex information (see Sargeant and Gillett-Swan, 2015 ). There do now exist child-friendly copies of the uncrc (Save the Children, n.d.-a ; The Scottish Government, 2008 ; unicef , n.d.-a ) and these appear to offer ways to make the uncrc more accessible for children, from a young age. Further development of this is a current focus for Child Rights Connect linked to the 30th Anniversary ( The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, n.d. ). There are also focused ways to implement, support and develop children’s education about their rights, such as through Unicef UK’s rights-respecting schools award, and in a variety of other publications used in and beyond the UK (for example, see Brantefors and Quennerstedt’s research synthesis, 2016 ).

The present review aims to identify and synthesise findings from a range of primary research studies to present a view upon children’s views of children’s rights, and as such includes research from different countries, ages, groups (such as those in residential care) and level of exposure to children’s rights. The importance of understanding constructions of children’s rights through children’s views and experiences at a broad, and indeed global, level and considering their different contexts, is identified by Stalford and Lundy (2020) . It is fundamental within the uncrc itself, within the guiding principles, the 3Ps and the specific articles.

2 Methodology

From a background in professional practice, the researchers adopted a critical realist approach in conceptualising and structuring this review ( Fletcher, 2017 ). This has the advantage of communicating a particular understanding of “rigour” which is readily understandable to professional practice communities (e.g. children’s services workers) and policy makers/influencers ( Gough and Thomas, 2017 ). (The limitations of this approach are considered at a later point in this paper.)

From the research question of “What are children’s views on children’s rights?”, included research needed to access the views of children (up to 18 years) about children’s rights and this needed to be at a general or “meta” level, for all or some of the focus of the paper. The authors read carefully around this aim, with recognition of the nuanced nature of identifying relevant literature. There is much research which implicitly recognises the need to access children’s views and acknowledges the importance of children’s rights, without these being the focus of the research itself. Databases searched included: assia (via ProQuest), eric (via ProQuest) and PsycInfo (via Ovid Online). These three databases were selected in order to gather research from a range of discipline areas including education, social sciences and psychology, with a focus on accessing research on children’s views. Whilst the importance of interdisciplinarity is recognised (see Stalford and Lundy, 2020 ), it was beyond the scope of the authors to extend searches further for this review. The three databases were searched using noft ( assia , eric ) and within Abstract and within Title (PsycInfo) on 2–4 January 2019 and generated a total of 1,536 returns, including duplications, using the following search terms:

– ‘child* rights’ or uncrc or ‘United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’
– child* or young people or student* or pupil* or adolescent*
– concept* or perspective* or view* or attitude* or perceive or awareness or perception* or opinion* or thought* or value*

Each paper was scanned by title, and where necessary by abstract, and papers that did not meet the mandatory criteria of accessing children’s views about children’s rights were excluded. This left a shortlist of 116 studies, from assia (6), eric (72), PsycInfo Abstract (30) and PsycInfo Title (8). Using the same search terms, a hand search of The International Journal of Children’s Rights from the last ten years was carried out as were Google searches, and experts 1 within relevant fields were consulted, together providing another five papers at this stage.

The authors recognise there is a “grey area” around research relevance, and searched for papers with a focus upon children’s view of their rights in general, rather than any specific area of rights (e.g. participation, protection, uncrc ). Search terms did not include “voice” and “participation”, as earlier scoping showed that this understandably added a large body of research with a focus on participation as a specific aspect within the uncrc . This review aimed to access a broader view.

In order to create a final list that most reliably accessed these, several papers were discussed in detail between the authors, using the abstracts and in six cases, the full papers. A conservative approach was taken which required agreement of both authors in order for papers to be included. To meet inclusion criteria, papers were required to have a focus on rights generally and not only on specific rights, or uncrc Articles, or with a specific focus such as on “nurturance” or “self-determination”. Research was not excluded if it did not use the uncrc specifically as a framework. Papers were manually filtered to include all those published within the last ten years (2009–2019) and grey literature was not included. Whilst this exclusion decision and cut off period was not linked to any specific event or legislation, it has the benefit of accessing views from children in a contemporary context, whilst also providing a dataset of manageable proportions.

The review did not extend to search for research reported in languages other than English. Nonetheless, if the search terms had produced abstracts (and not full papers) written in English, the authors would have sought assistance to translate these.

This process led to 15 papers being identified as suitable for inclusion. These were each read in full and a further six papers were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria; for example, including pupil participants who were over the age of 18 years, or utilising a structured and directive approach focused on outcomes of children’s rights training. This was due to some research focusing on knowledge of structured content pre and post teaching on children’s rights, without gathering children’s more broadly formed views about their rights, either pre- or post- rights teaching, which was the primary focus on this review.

The final inclusion criteria required papers to:

– access the views of children (up to 18 years) about children’s rights;
– have a general or “meta” rights focus, and not a narrow focus on specific rights or rights frameworks;
– be peer-reviewed research published in the last ten years;
– not use a structured and directive approach focused on outcomes of rights training/education.

Full review then progressed with the evaluation of the remaining nine papers. It is relevant to note that two of these, Kosher and Ben-Arieh (2017) and af Ursin and Haanpää (2018) , utilise the same dataset but with differing scope and analyses.

Gough’s (2007) Weight of Evidence (WofE) framework was used. Quantitative and/or qualitative review frameworks as appropriate to the specific piece of research were used critically to review the nine papers for methodological quality (WofE A). The qualitative investigation and evaluation papers utilised the frameworks used by Bond et al. (2013) in their review of the effectiveness of solution focused brief therapy (cf. also Law and Woods, 2018 ). Each paper was coded with final scores assigned up to 14 points, with criteria including execution of data collection, analysis close to data, evidence of explicit reflexivity and evidence of attention to ethical issues.

The quantitative investigations utilised a framework previously used by Flitcroft and Woods (2018) , and Woodley-Hume and Woods (2019) , and based on research appraisal guidelines ( Genaidy et al. , 2007 ; Wallace and Wray, 2011 ). These were coded with final scores assigned up to 16 points, with criteria including clear research question or hypothesis, multi-level or intergroup analyses, limitations of the research and implications of findings. Following Bond et al. (2013) , mixed methods research was coded using both frameworks. As frameworks had different totals, final scores were converted to percentages to allow for comparison, and the higher percentage was used. Following Law and Woods (2018) , these percentages were then used to categorise each paper as high quality (67–100 per cent), medium quality (34–66 per cent), or low quality (33 per cent or less).

Each paper was also rated for methodological appropriateness (WofE B). In this case, papers were assessed as high if they used qualitative methods, medium for mixed methods and low for quantitative methods. Whilst the use of qualitative methods enables gathering of data close to participant views, quantitative research also adds relevant information about these (cf. Law and Woods, 2018 ).

Each paper was also evaluated for relevance of focus (WofE C) and categorised as:

– high (central and open focus on children’s views on children’s rights in general);
– medium (partial and open focus on children’s views on children’s rights in general or central focus on children’s views on children’s rights with (de)limiting context/framework);
– low (tangential focus on children’s views on children’s rights in general).

Approximately one third (n = 3) of these papers were reviewed by both authors for the purpose of moderating evaluation, and inter-rater agreement percentages following joint moderation were calculated at an average of 97 per cent final inter-rater agreement; the remaining six papers were read in their entirety and reviewed by the first author.

Each paper was read several times by the first author and key data from each paper was mapped and summarised (see Table 1 ). A content analysis of the findings of each paper was then carried out (cf. Brantefors and Quennerstedt, 2016 ), which supported a recursive process of hybrid aggregative-configurative synthesis ( Gough et al. , 2013 ), which referenced both broad conceptualisations of children’s rights, as well as to the principles of the uncrc and its Articles. This process is summarised in Figure 1 above:

Cover The International Journal of Children's Rights

3.1 Awareness and Understanding of Rights
3.2 Value and Importance Placed on Rights
3.3 Impact of Having/Not having Rights Fulfilled
3.4 Realisation and Respect of Rights
3.5 Equality of Rights
3.6 Identifying and Categorising Rights
3.7 Factors that May Affect Children’s Views
4.1 Summary of Findings
4.2 Implications for Theory and Understanding
4.3 Implications for Practice
4.4 Implications for Future Research
4.5 Limitations

Reference Works

Primary source collections

COVID-19 Collection

How to publish with Brill

Open Access Content

Contact & Info

Sales contacts

Publishing contacts

Stay Updated

Newsletters

Social Media Overview

Terms and Conditions

Privacy Statement

Cookie Settings

Accessibility

Legal Notice

[66.249.64.20|185.80.150.64]
185.80.150.64

Character limit 500 /500

A progressions to children’s rights realisation

Citation: The International Journal of Children's Rights 29, 4 (2021) ; 10.1163/15718182-29040003

Download Figure
Download figure as PowerPoint slide

How we protect Children's rights

With the un convention on the rights of the child.

Home > What we do > What is the UN Convention on Child Rights?

What is the UN Convention?

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is the basis of all of our work. It is the most complete statement of children’s rights ever produced and is the most widely-ratified international human rights treaty in history.

What makes the UN Convention so special?

The Convention has 54 articles that cover all aspects of a child’s life and set out the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights that all children everywhere are entitled to. It also explains how adults and governments must work together to make sure all children can enjoy all their rights.

Every child has rights “without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status” (Article 2).

The Convention must be seen as a whole: all the rights are linked and no right is more important than another. The right to relax and play (Article 31) and the right to freedom of expression (Article 13) have equal importance as the right to be safe from violence (Article 19) and the right to education (Article 28).

We are the only o rganisation working for children r ecognised by the Convention.

The Convention is also the most widely ratified human rights treaty in the world. All UN member states except for the United States have ratified the Convention. The Convention came into force in the UK in 1992.

Girl in Jordan in a UNICEF-supported centre. UNICEF/Al-Safadi

What is in the UN Convention?

There are four articles in the Convention that are seen as special. They’re known as the “General Principles” and they help to interpret all the other articles and play a fundamental role in r ealising all the rights in the Convention for all children. They are:

Non-discrimination (Article 2)
Best interest of the child (Article 3)
Right to life survival and development (Article 6)
Right to be heard (Article 12)

You can read the full UN Convention (pdf) , or just a summary (pdf) , to find out more about the rights that are included.

UNCRC Protocols

The Convention also contains a number of agreements to add further, unique rights for children that are optional for countries. They are called “Optional Protocols” and include:

The Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict This requires governments to increase the minimum age that children can join the armed forces from 15 years. It ensures that members of their armed forces younger than 18 do not take a direct part in armed conflict.
The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography This provides detailed requirements for governments to end the sexual exploitation and abuse of children. It also protects children from being sold for non-sexual purposes, such as other forms of forced labour, illegal adoption and organ donation.
The Optional Protocol on a communications procedure This allows children to submit a complaint to the United Nations when their rights have been violated and their own country’s legal system was not able to offer a solution.

Discover more

Our work in the UK

How we're helping children here in the UK

Fundraise at your school

Fundraising ideas for schools

Campaign with us to protect children's rights

See our latest petition

Donate to UNICEF

You can help change a child's life today

High contrast

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

Publication date: 5

Publication series: Innocenti Essay

No. of pages: 38

COPY BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION

Download the report, related project(s):, related topics, more in this series: innocenti essay.

A Human Rights Conceptual Framework for UNICEF

Child Rights in Latin America: From irregular situation to full protection

Better Schools, Less Child Work. Child Work and Education in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala and Peru

Child Labour and Basic Education in Latin America and the Caribbean

Thank you! Please help us to serve your needs better while your PDF downloads:

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Published: 28 July 2023

Children’s rights as a unifying framework to remedy our failing youth justice system

Elizabeth Barnert ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1664-4551 1 ,
Scott Henderson 2 ,
James Dold 3 &
Jonathan Todres 4

Pediatric Research volume 94 , pages 1874–1877 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

122 Accesses

1 Citations

Metrics details

The United States (US) incarcerates a greater proportion of its youth than any other nation in a legal system that harms young people’s health across the life course. 1 Black, Latino, and Indigenous youth receive inequitable treatment at every stage along the carceral continuum, whereas white youth have more chances to receive supportive care outside of the carceral system, which should be the standard for every youth. 2 The overpolicing and harsh sentencing of youth creates profound lifelong health effects through a racialized erasure of childhood, particularly for youth of color, as revealed in Human Rights for Kids’ (HRFK) report, “Crimes Against Humanity: The Mass Incarceration of Children in the United States.” The report shows that more than 32,000 people reside in US prisons for crimes committed as children, with glaring racial/ethnic disparities. 2 On a given day in the United States, more than 2,400 children under 18 are confined in adult prisons, 3 which is a direct violation of international human rights law, including Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a treaty the US ratified in 1992. 4 Article 10 mandates that anyone deprived of their liberty must “be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person,” and stipulates that all children who are incarcerated must be separated from adults. Related, Article 14 of the ICCPR states that for “juvenile” offenders, the state must “take account of their age and the desirability of promoting their rehabilitation”. The HRFK report highlights that thousands of children have received life and de facto life sentences, which can be considered a violation of the rehabilitative and tailored approach to children demanded by the ICCPR and other human rights treaties.

Instead of funneling our most marginalized children through a school-to-prison pipeline that violates children’s basic human rights, we must develop true safety nets—restorative, supportive systems that give every young person the chance to thrive. Children’s rights is an urgently needed framework for transforming youth justice and fostering health equity. Other nations have successfully applied children’s rights to youth justice. For example, Ireland’s sole youth detention center, Oberstown, utilizes a children’s rights approach to design and implement holistic, individualized rehabilitative services delivered to youth in a safe, secure environment aimed at optimizing the care, well-being, and development of each youth. 5 In contrast, the US carceral system lacks a children’s rights frame and fails to meet the standards set forth by the ICCPR and children’s rights treaties. This essay explains the applicability of a children’s rights framework to pediatrics so that child health professionals can lead the way in confronting the impact of the youth justice system on children, especially youth of color, and ensuring child wellbeing.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 14 print issues and online access

251,40 € per year

only 17,96 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Data availability

The human rights treaties analyzed for this article are publicly available and can be found on the United Nations website [ https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child ; https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights ].

Barnert, E. S. et al. How does incarcerating young people affect their adult health outcomes? Pediatrics 139 , 2016–2624 (2017).

Article Google Scholar

Human Rights for Kids, Crimes Against Humanity: The Mass Incarceration of Children in the United States. May 2023.

Sayer, W., Wagner P. Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2023. Prison Policy Initiative. March 2023.

UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, December 16 1966. United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights .

Killkelly, U. et al. Annual Report 2021. Oberstown Children Detention Campus. July 2022.

UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child and General Comments, United Nations. http://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the youth justice advocacy community for all of their efforts to protect and advance children’s rights.

E.B. effort was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (K23DA045747) and the UCLA Children’s Discovery and Innovation Institute. The information, content and/or conclusions are those of the authors and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by NIH, the U.S. Government, or our institutions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Elizabeth Barnert

Kaiser Permanente School of Medicine, Pasadena, CA, USA

Scott Henderson

CEO and Founder of Human Rights for Kids, Washington, DC, USA

Distinguished University Professor and Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law, Atlanta, GA, USA

Jonathan Todres

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

E.B. and S.H. contributed to the drafting of the article. J.D. and J.T. served as conceptual experts and editors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Barnert .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

E.B. volunteers on the Board of Directors of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) and on the Advisory Board of Human Rights for Kids. J.D. is the Founder & CEO of Human Rights for Kids. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Barnert, E., Henderson, S., Dold, J. et al. Children’s rights as a unifying framework to remedy our failing youth justice system. Pediatr Res 94 , 1874–1877 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-023-02752-6

Download citation

Received : 28 June 2023

Accepted : 09 July 2023

Published : 28 July 2023

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-023-02752-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Share full article

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Supreme Court Got It Wrong: Abortion Is Not Settled Law

In an black-and-white photo illustration, nine abortion pills are arranged on a grid.

By Melissa Murray and Kate Shaw

Ms. Murray is a law professor at New York University. Ms. Shaw is a contributing Opinion writer.

In his majority opinion in the case overturning Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito insisted that the high court was finally settling the vexed abortion debate by returning the “authority to regulate abortion” to the “people and their elected representatives.”

Despite these assurances, less than two years after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, abortion is back at the Supreme Court. In the next month, the justices will hear arguments in two high-stakes cases that may shape the future of access to medication abortion and to lifesaving care for pregnancy emergencies. These cases make clear that Dobbs did not settle the question of abortion in America — instead, it generated a new slate of questions. One of those questions involves the interaction of existing legal rules with the concept of fetal personhood — the view, held by many in the anti-abortion movement, that a fetus is a person entitled to the same rights and protections as any other person.

The first case , scheduled for argument on Tuesday, F.D.A. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, is a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s protocols for approving and regulating mifepristone, one of the two drugs used for medication abortions. An anti-abortion physicians’ group argues that the F.D.A. acted unlawfully when it relaxed existing restrictions on the use and distribution of mifepristone in 2016 and 2021. In 2016, the agency implemented changes that allowed the use of mifepristone up to 10 weeks of pregnancy, rather than seven; reduced the number of required in-person visits for dispensing the drug from three to one; and allowed the drug to be prescribed by individuals like nurse practitioners. In 2021, it eliminated the in-person visit requirement, clearing the way for the drug to be dispensed by mail. The physicians’ group has urged the court to throw out those regulations and reinstate the previous, more restrictive regulations surrounding the drug — a ruling that could affect access to the drug in every state, regardless of the state’s abortion politics.

The second case, scheduled for argument on April 24, involves the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (known by doctors and health policymakers as EMTALA ), which requires federally funded hospitals to provide patients, including pregnant patients, with stabilizing care or transfer to a hospital that can provide such care. At issue is the law’s interaction with state laws that severely restrict abortion, like an Idaho law that bans abortion except in cases of rape or incest and circumstances where abortion is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.”

Although the Idaho law limits the provision of abortion care to circumstances where death is imminent, the federal government argues that under EMTALA and basic principles of federal supremacy, pregnant patients experiencing emergencies at federally funded hospitals in Idaho are entitled to abortion care, even if they are not in danger of imminent death.

These cases may be framed in the technical jargon of administrative law and federal pre-emption doctrine, but both cases involve incredibly high-stakes issues for the lives and health of pregnant persons — and offer the court an opportunity to shape the landscape of abortion access in the post-Roe era.

These two cases may also give the court a chance to seed new ground for fetal personhood. Woven throughout both cases are arguments that gesture toward the view that a fetus is a person.

If that is the case, the legal rules that would typically hold sway in these cases might not apply. If these questions must account for the rights and entitlements of the fetus, the entire calculus is upended.

In this new scenario, the issue is not simply whether EMTALA’s protections for pregnant patients pre-empt Idaho’s abortion ban, but rather which set of interests — the patient’s or the fetus’s — should be prioritized in the contest between state and federal law. Likewise, the analysis of F.D.A. regulatory protocols is entirely different if one of the arguments is that the drug to be regulated may be used to end a life.

Neither case presents the justices with a clear opportunity to endorse the notion of fetal personhood — but such claims are lurking beneath the surface. The Idaho abortion ban is called the Defense of Life Act, and in its first bill introduced in 2024, the Idaho Legislature proposed replacing the term “fetus” with “preborn child” in existing Idaho law. In its briefs before the court, Idaho continues to beat the drum of fetal personhood, insisting that EMTALA protects the unborn — rather than pregnant women who need abortions during health emergencies.

According to the state, nothing in EMTALA imposes an obligation to provide stabilizing abortion care for pregnant women. Rather, the law “actually requires stabilizing treatment for the unborn children of pregnant women.” In the mifepristone case, advocates referred to fetuses as “unborn children,” while the district judge in Texas who invalidated F.D.A. approval of the drug described it as one that “starves the unborn human until death.”

Fetal personhood language is in ascent throughout the country. In a recent decision , the Alabama Supreme Court allowed a wrongful-death suit for the destruction of frozen embryos intended for in vitro fertilization, or I.V.F. — embryos that the court characterized as “extrauterine children.”

Less discussed but as worrisome is a recent oral argument at the Florida Supreme Court concerning a proposed ballot initiative intended to enshrine a right to reproductive freedom in the state’s Constitution. In considering the proposed initiative, the chief justice of the state Supreme Court repeatedly peppered Nathan Forrester, the senior deputy solicitor general who was representing the state, with questions about whether the state recognized the fetus as a person under the Florida Constitution. The point was plain: If the fetus was a person, then the proposed ballot initiative, and its protections for reproductive rights, would change the fetus’s rights under the law, raising constitutional questions.

As these cases make clear, the drive toward fetal personhood goes beyond simply recasting abortion as homicide. If the fetus is a person, any act that involves reproduction may implicate fetal rights. Fetal personhood thus has strong potential to raise questions about access to abortion, contraception and various forms of assisted reproductive technology, including I.V.F.

In response to the shifting landscape of reproductive rights, President Biden has pledged to “restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.” Roe and its successor, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, were far from perfect; they afforded states significant leeway to impose onerous restrictions on abortion, making meaningful access an empty promise for many women and families of limited means. But the two decisions reflected a constitutional vision that, at least in theory, protected the liberty to make certain intimate choices — including choices surrounding if, when and how to become a parent.

Under the logic of Roe and Casey, the enforceability of EMTALA, the F.D.A.’s power to regulate mifepristone and access to I.V.F. weren’t in question. But in the post-Dobbs landscape, all bets are off. We no longer live in a world in which a shared conception of constitutional liberty makes a ban on I.V.F. or certain forms of contraception beyond the pale.

Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University and a host of the Supreme Court podcast “ Strict Scrutiny ,” is a co-author of “ The Trump Indictments : The Historic Charging Documents With Commentary.”

Kate Shaw is a contributing Opinion writer, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and a host of the Supreme Court podcast “Strict Scrutiny.” She served as a law clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens and Judge Richard Posner.

IMAGES

Childrens Rights
Civil Rights Essay
Childrens Rights in Education Essay Example
Childrens Rights in the UK and International Human Rights Essay Example
10 Lines on Child Rights Day for Students and Children in English
The Library Voice: The Children's 10 Rights to Read...Let's Support Our

VIDEO

Essay on Child Rights
Child Rights Planning: The Case of a Special Child
Child Rights|
Essay On Child Rights
Essay on Human Rights || Human rights essay in english || essay on Human rights day
Paragraph on Child Labour in Bangladesh

COMMENTS

Essay on Child Rights
These provided essays on Child Rights will help you to write effective essays, paragraphs, and speeches on this topic. Child Rights Essay 10 Lines (100 - 150 Words) 1) Children have some basic human rights as adults which are referred to as child rights. 2) Every child has rights, irrespective of their age, race, gender, or where they were born.
Essay on Child Rights
500 Words Essay on Child Rights Introduction. Child rights are fundamental freedoms and the inherent rights of all human beings below the age of 18. These rights apply to every child, irrespective of their race, religion, or abilities. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), adopted in 1989, is a comprehensive human ...
Child rights and why they matter
By recognizing children's rights in this way, the Convention firmly sets the focus on the whole child. The Convention recognizes the fundamental human dignity of all children and the urgency of ensuring their well-being and development. It makes clear the idea that a basic quality of life should be the right of all children, rather than a ...
Essay on Child Rights for Students in English [500+ Words]
Essay on Child Rights: The sound development of a child in terms of physical, mental, emotional and social growth is the essential right of every child. Children can express their claim to these rights without any hesitation. Right to education is also a fundamental right, and these factors have been placed on world agenda tables.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child: The children's version
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an important agreement by countries who have promised to protect children's rights. The Convention explains who children are, all their rights, and the responsibilities of governments. All the rights are connected, they are all equally important and they cannot be taken away from ...
75 Children's Rights Essay Topic Ideas & Examples
Importance of Reading for Child's Right Future Life. It is imperative to engage in a child's upbringing from childhood to strive to make their life happy. It is essential to have a sense of harmony, integrity and eliminate the feeling of inferiority. Children's Rights and the Means of Their Protection.
Child rights and human rights explained
The United Nations has since adopted many legally binding international human rights treaties and agreements, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These treaties are used as a framework for discussing and applying human rights. The principles and rights they outline become legal obligations on the States that choose to be bound ...
Essay on Importance of Child Rights
250 Words Essay on Importance of Child Rights Introduction. Child rights are fundamental freedoms and the inherent rights of all human beings below the age of 18. These rights apply to every child, regardless of their race, religion, or abilities. The importance of child rights cannot be understated as they ensure the holistic development of a ...
Children's Rights
DOI: 10.1057/9780230361843. Emphasizes the importance of cross-cultural understandings of children's rights and of examining the differing contexts in which children live. Each chapter is written by an expert in the field, and this book is a vital starting point for understanding children's rights in different parts of the world.
Children's Rights
Core to UNICEF's mission: safeguarding child rights The Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most widely ratified human rights treaty, recognizes the fundamental human dignity of all children and the urgency of ensuring their well-being and development.The treaty makes clear that a basic quality of life should be the right of all children everywhere remains a guiding force behind UNICEF ...
Toward Free Education for All Children
This essay is part of a series highlighting global human rights trends in 2022. ... to recognize every child's right to free pre-primary education and free secondary education.
Convention on The Rights of The Child
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) was developed in 1989 and is the first legally binding international instrument to incorporate the full range of human rights for children —civil, cultural, economic, political and social. It is a recognition by world leaders that children have human rights and people under 18 ...
The Importance of Children's Rights
The development rights concern those rights that need to be possessed by the child to realize full potential in life including the right to education, religion and the freedom of thought. Protection rights refer to the right to life and the protection against abuse and exploitation and also against being neglected.
Children's Rights
Children's Rights. First published Wed Oct 16, 2002; substantive revision Tue Jan 24, 2023. 'In present-day political and moral philosophy the idea that all persons are in some way moral equals has become dogma' (Steinhoff ed. 2015, xi). Yet in the collection of essays from whose Introduction this quotation comes and that seeks to explain ...
Children's Human Rights
Whatever their age, all children have human rights, just as adults do. This includes the right to speak out and express opinions, as well as rights to equality, health, education, a clean environment, a safe place to live and protection from all kinds of harm. Children's rights are enshrined in the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights ...
Children's Views on Children's Rights: A Systematic ...
Abstract Children's rights are set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This systematic literature review aimed to investigate children's views of children's rights, at a broad level. Nine papers were included, from a range of countries and contexts. They all accessed the views of children and young people (aged up to 18 years). A content analysis was carried ...
History of child rights
The Convention on the Rights of the Child is adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and widely acclaimed as a landmark achievement for human rights, recognizing the roles of children as social, economic, political, civil and cultural actors. The Convention guarantees and sets minimum standards for protecting the rights of children in ...
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
It is the most complete statement of children's rights ever produced and is the most widely-ratified international human rights treaty in history. What makes the UN Convention so special? The Convention has 54 articles that cover all aspects of a child's life and set out the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights that all ...
PDF Protecting the Rights of the Child in Humanitarian Situations
The main challenges in protecting the rights of the child in humanitarian situations An estimated 535 million children - nearly one in four children in the world - live in countries affected by humanitarian crises, often without access to medical care, clean water and sanitation facilities, proper nutrition, quality education or protection. ...
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been variously hailed as 'the cornerstone of a new moral ethos' and a 'milestone in the history of mankind'. ... The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Three essays on the challenge of implementation, Innocenti Essay, no. 5, International Child Development Centre, Florence ...
Children's rights as a unifying framework to remedy our ...
This essay explains the applicability of a children's rights framework to pediatrics so that child health professionals can lead the way in confronting the impact of the youth justice system on ...
Parental and Children's Rights and Due Process
Jump to essay-2 452 U.S. at 32. Jump to essay-3 See, e.g., Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1 (1981) (indigent entitled to state-funded blood testing in a state-mandated paternity action); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (imposition of higher standard of proof in case involving state termination of parental rights).
Convention on the Rights of the Child
For every child, every right. In 1989, world leaders made a historic commitment to the world's children by adopting the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child - an international agreement on childhood. It's become the most widely ratified human rights treaty in history and has helped transform children's lives around the ...
Child Homelessness in the USA: Balancing Human Rights, Criminal ...
Child homelessness is a complex and widespread problem in the United States of America, posing intricate issues and problems with significant ramifications in the context of criminal law, human rights, and national security. The essential human rights of shelter, education, and security are at the core of these issues, affecting every individual.
Right to Education: Forced Migration and Child Education Outcomes
Abstract: About a third of the 7.7 million Venezuelans who have left their country due to political and economic turmoil have settled in neighboring Colombia. The extent to which the Colombian schooling system can absorb the massive demand for education of Venezuelan children is key for their future trajectory of human capital accumulation, as ...
Why Abortion Is Back at the Supreme Court
Ms. Murray is a law professor at New York University. Ms. Shaw is a contributing Opinion writer. In his majority opinion in the case overturning Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito insisted that the ...
PDF Teaching and learning about child rights
• Furthers the realization of child rights as laid down in the CRC and other international human rights instruments; • Uses child rights standards and principles from the CRC and other international human rights instruments to guide behaviour, actions, policies and programmes; • Builds the capacity of children as rights-holders to
Best Divorce Lawyers Albuquerque, NM Of 2024
Splitting assets, deciding on child custody and visitation rights, working out alimony and determining how to file your divorce papers are just a few of the things you need to think through when ...

Essay on Child Rights

Short and Long Child Rights Essay in English

Child Rights Essay 10 Lines (100 – 150 Words)

Short Essay on Child Rights (250 – 300 Words)

Long Essay on Child Rights (500 Words)

FAQs: Frequently Asked Questions on Child Rights

Related Posts

Essay on Child Rights for Students in English [500+ Words]

Essay on Child Rights 500 Words in English

10 Lines on Child Rights

75 Children’s Rights Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Essay on Importance of Child Rights

100 Words Essay on Importance of Child Rights

Importance of Child Rights

250 Words Essay on Importance of Child Rights

Protection and Survival

Education and Development

Empowerment and Participation

500 Words Essay on Importance of Child Rights

Recognition of Child Rights

The Importance of Child Rights

Child Rights and Society

Challenges to Child Rights

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Childhood Studies

How to Subscribe

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Children’s Rights

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

Other Subject Areas

Children’s Rights by Heather Montgomery LAST REVIEWED: 11 January 2022 LAST MODIFIED: 11 January 2018 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199791231-0001

Convention on The Rights of The Child

Works Cited:

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Child

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

The Importance of Children’s Rights

Bibliography

Children’s Rights

1. Children and Rights

Support SEP

Share link with colleague or librarian

Children’s Views on Children’s Rights: A Systematic Literature Review

How we protect Children's rights

What is the UN Convention?

What makes the UN Convention so special?

What is in the UN Convention?

UNCRC Protocols

Discover more

Our work in the UK

Fundraise at your school

Campaign with us to protect children's rights

Donate to UNICEF

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

COPY BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION

Children’s rights as a unifying framework to remedy our failing youth justice system

Access options

Data availability

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Quick links

The Supreme Court Got It Wrong: Abortion Is Not Settled Law

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS