The United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
Luisa Blanchfield
Specialist in International Relations
December 2, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40484
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
Summary
U.S. ratification of the United Nations (U.N.) Convention on the Rights of the Child (hereafter
referred to as CRC or the Convention) may be a key area of focus during the 111th Congress,
particularly if the Barack Obama Administration seeks the advice and consent of the Senate. CRC
is an international treaty that aims to protect the rights of children worldwide. It defines a child as
any human being under the age of 18, and calls on States Parties to take all appropriate measures
to ensure that children’s rights are protected—including the right to a name and nationality,
freedom of speech and thought, access to healthcare and education, and freedom from
exploitation, torture, and abuse. CRC entered into force in September 1990, and has been ratified
by 193 countries, making it the most widely ratified human rights treaty in the world. Two
countries, the United States and Somalia, have not ratified CRC. The President has not
transmitted CRC to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification.
Despite widespread U.S. support for the overall objectives of the Convention, some past and
current policymakers have raised concerns as to whether it is an effective mechanism for
protecting children’s rights. The Clinton Administration signed the Convention in February 1995,
but did not submit it to the Senate primarily because of strong opposition from several Members
of Congress. The George W. Bush Administration opposed CRC and expressed serious political
and legal concerns with the treaty, arguing that it conflicted with U.S. laws regarding privacy and
family rights. The election of President Barack Obama in 2008 has focused renewed attention on
the possibility of U.S. ratification. The Administration has stated that any decision to pursue
ratification of CRC will be determined through an interagency policy review. Perhaps more than
other human rights treaties, CRC addresses areas that are usually considered to be primarily or
exclusively under the jurisdiction of state or local governments, including education, juvenile
justice, and access to healthcare. Some of these conflicting areas will likely need to be resolved
by the executive branch and the Senate before the United States ratifies the Convention.
The question of U.S. ratification of CRC has generated contentious debate. Opponents argue that
U.S. ratification would undermine U.S. sovereignty by giving the United Nations authority to
determine the best interests of U.S. children. Some are also concerned that CRC could interfere in
the private lives of families, particularly the rights of parents to educate and discipline their
children. Moreover, some argue that CRC is an ineffective mechanism for protecting children’s
rights. They emphasize that countries that are widely regarded as abusers of children’s rights,
including China and Sudan, are party to the Convention. Supporters of U.S. ratification, on the
other hand, hold that CRC’s intention is not to circumvent the role of parents but to protect
children against government intrusion and abuse. Proponents emphasize what they view as CRC’s
strong support for the role of parents and the family structure. Additionally, supporters hold that
U.S. federal and state laws generally meet the requirements of CRC, and that U.S. ratification
would strengthen the United States’ credibility when advocating children’s rights abroad.
This report provides an overview of CRC’s background and structure and examines evolving U.S.
policy toward the Convention, including past and current Administration positions and
congressional perspectives. The report also highlights issues for the 111th Congress, including the
Convention’s possible impact on federal and state laws, U.S. sovereignty, parental rights, and
U.S. family planning and abortion policy. It also addresses the effectiveness of CRC in protecting
the rights of children internationally and its potential use as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy.
Congressional Research Service
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Evolution of the Convention........................................................................................................ 2
Objectives and Structure ............................................................................................................. 3
Committee on the Rights of the Child.................................................................................... 3
Optional Protocols on Children in Armed Conflict and the Sale of Children .......................... 4
U.S. Actions................................................................................................................................ 5
Obama Administration .......................................................................................................... 5
Previous Administrations ...................................................................................................... 6
Congressional Perspectives ................................................................................................... 7
Policy Issues ............................................................................................................................... 7
Federal and State Laws ......................................................................................................... 7
U.S. Sovereignty ................................................................................................................... 9
Parental Rights...................................................................................................................... 9
Abortion ............................................................................................................................. 13
Negotiating History of the Convention Addressing Abortion ......................................... 14
Family Planning.................................................................................................................. 15
The Effectiveness of the Convention ................................................................................... 16
The Convention as an Instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy..................................................... 17
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 18
Congressional Research Service
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
Introduction
The 111th Congress may demonstrate an interest in U.S. ratification of the United Nations (U.N.)
Convention on the Rights of the Child (hereafter referred to as CRC or the Convention),
particularly if the Barack Obama Administration submits it to the Senate for its advice and
consent. CRC is an international treaty that addresses the rights of children worldwide. It calls on
States Parties to take all appropriate measures to ensure that children receive special rights,
including the right to a name and nationality; access to healthcare, education, and parental care;
and protection from exploitation, abuse, and neglect.1 CRC entered into force on September 2,
1990 and 193 countries are currently party to the Convention, making it the most widely ratified
human rights treaty. The United States has signed, but not ratified, the Convention. One other
country, Somalia, has not ratified CRC.2
Past Administrations have generally supported the overall objectives of CRC, but have had
concerns as to whether the Convention is the most effective mechanism for addressing children’s
rights domestically and abroad. The Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations
played significant roles in negotiating the text of CRC; due to concerns regarding the
Convention’s possible impact on U.S. sovereignty and on state and federal laws, however, neither
Administration signed or transmitted the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent to
ratification. The Bill Clinton Administration supported CRC, and on February 16, 1995, then-
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright signed the Convention on behalf of the United States. The
Clinton Administration did not transmit the treaty to the Senate, however, because of opposition
from key Members of Congress, including then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman
Jesse Helms. The George W. Bush Administration did not support ratification of CRC, citing
“serious political and legal concerns” with the treaty. It questioned the impact of U.S. ratification
on state and federal laws and argued that the treaty was at odds with the emphasis of the United
States on the duty of parents to protect and care for their children.
The election of President Barack Obama has focused renewed attention on the possibility of U.S.
ratification of the Convention. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama stated that his
Administration would review the treaty. Similarly, Susan Rice, appointed U.S. Permanent
Representative to the United Nations, said at her January 2009 confirmation hearing that the
Obama Administration supported CRC objectives and would conduct a legal review of the treaty.
On November 24, 2009, a State Department spokesperson confirmed that the Administration is
conducting an interagency policy review of CRC and other human rights treaties that the United
States has not ratified.3
This report provides a brief history of the Convention and outlines its objectives and structure,
including the role and responsibilities of the treaty’s monitoring body, the Committee on the
Rights of the Child. It examines U.S. policy toward CRC, including the positions of past and
current Administrations and congressional perspectives. The report also addresses selected policy
issues that the 111th Congress may wish to take into account if considering ratification of CRC—
1 The term “States Parties” refers to countries that have ratified or acceded to the Convention.
2 The U.S. government is party to the CRC Optional Protocol on Children and Armed Conflict and the Optional
Protocol on the Sale of Children. See the “Optional Protocols on Children in Armed Conflict and the Sale of Children”
for more information.
3 Department of State Daily Press Briefing by Ian Kelly, State Department Spokesperson, Washington, DC, November
24, 2009, at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/nov/132362.htm.
Congressional Research Service
1
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
including the treaty’s possible impact on U.S. sovereignty, federal and state laws, and parental
rights. Other issues for possible consideration include the effectiveness of the Convention in
protecting children’s rights, and its role as a U.S. foreign policy instrument.
Evolution of the Convention
U.N. member states first collectively recognized the rights of children in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, a non-binding resolution adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in
1948.4 The Declaration states, “Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and
assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social
protection.” U.N. member states further enunciated children’s rights by unanimously adopting the
Declaration on the Rights of the Child in 1959. The Declaration, which incorporates language
from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, calls on governments, families, and individuals
to ensure that all children enjoy certain rights, including appropriate legal protections, a name and
nationality, access to healthcare, and protection from abuse and exploitation.5 The international
community also acknowledged the special rights of children in the International Covenant on
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (CCPR), which both entered into force in 1976.6
The possibility of a Convention on the Rights of the Child was first raised by the government of
Poland in 1978 as U.N. member states planned activities and programs that would take place
during the International Year of the Child in 1979.7 For the next decade, U.N. member states
participated in a U.N. Commission on Human Rights (now the Human Rights Council) working
group to draft the CRC text. The Convention was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly after a
decade of negotiations on November 20, 1989, and entered into force on September 2, 1990. 8
4 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was not the first international document to address the rights of children.
On September 16, 1924, members of the League of Nations agreed to the Geneva Declaration on the Rights of the
Child. The Declaration recognized that children must be: given material and spiritual means for normal development;
fed or nursed, reclaimed when delinquent, and sheltered when orphaned; the first to receive relief in times of distress;
and put in a position to earn a livelihood and be sheltered from exploitation. It was adopted by U.N. General Assembly
resolution 217 A (III) on December 10, 1948 by a vote of 48 in favor, zero against, and eight abstentions.
5 U.N. General Assembly resolution 1386 (XIV), November 20, 1959.
6 Article 10 of CESCR states, “Special measures of protection and assistance should be taken on behalf of all children
and young persons without any discrimination for reasons of parentage or other conditions.... ” Article 24 of CCPR
states that every child shall have “the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on
the part of his family, society and the State.” CESCR entered into force on January 3, 1976, and CCPR entered into
force on March 23, 1976. The United States ratified CCPR on October 21, 1994. It signed CESCR on October 5, 1997,
but has not ratified it.
7 U.N. member states periodically designate years or decades to highlight special issues, events, or disadvantaged
groups.
8 CRC was adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 on
November 20, 1989.
Congressional Research Service
2
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
Objectives and Structure
CRC defines a child as “every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law
applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.”9 It states that the best interest of the child
should be the primary consideration in all actions concerning children. Countries that are party to
CRC agree to take all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures to ensure that all
children in their jurisdiction have the rights set forth in the Convention. Such rights include life
and development; name, nationality, and parental care; health and access to healthcare services;
and education. They also include protection from abuse and neglect, freedom of expression,
religion, association, and peaceful assembly. CRC also calls for the protection of children from
economic, sexual, and other forms of exploitation, torture, and capital punishment for offenses
committed before the age of 18. It also provides special protections for orphans, refugees, and the
disabled.
Article 5 of CRC recognizes the role of parents, requiring that “States Parties shall respect the
responsibilities, rights and duties of parents ... to provide ... appropriate direction and guidance in
the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.” The Convention also
states that children have the right to know and be cared for by their parents, and recognizes that
the “rights and duties” of parents should be taken into account when States Parties seek to ensure
a child’s well-being.10
Committee on the Rights of the Child
The Committee on the Rights of the Child (the Committee) was established under Article 43 of
CRC to examine progress made by States Parties in meeting their obligations under the
Convention. It is comprised of 18 independent experts who serve four-year terms. Each State
Party may nominate one candidate from among its nationals, and Committee members are elected
by States Parties by an absolute majority, taking into account equitable geographic distribution.11
The Committee generally meets in Geneva, Switzerland for three sessions per year—including a
three-week plenary and a one-week pre-sessional working group. It may hold special sessions at
the request of the Committee Chairperson in consultation with other Committee members.
Special sessions may also be convened at the request of a majority of Committee members or at
the request of a State Party to the Convention.12 Committee members elect a Chairperson, three
Vice-Chairpersons, and a Rapporteur to serve two-year terms. The Chairperson, currently
Yanghee Lee of the Republic of Korea, directs Committee discussions and decision making and
ensures that Committee rules are followed. The Committee submits a report on its activities to the
U.N. General Assembly through the U.N. Economic and Social Council every two years.
The Committee’s primary responsibility is to monitor reports submitted by States Parties on
national implementation of CRC. Countries are required to submit an initial report to the
Committee within two years of ratifying or acceding to CRC, followed by regular reports every
five years. According to the Convention, these reports should include any “factors and
9 See Article 1, CRC. The text of the Convention is available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm.
10 See CRC Articles 7(1) and 3(2). For more information, see the “Parental Rights” section.
11 Committee members are eligible for re-election if nominated. See Article 43 for more information on the Committee.
12 U.N. document, CRC/C/4/Rev.1, part I, rule 3, April 25, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
3
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
difficulties,” affecting the fulfillment of the obligations under the Convention. States Parties
present their reports at regular Committee meetings and engage in an open dialogue with
Committee members to address progress and challenges to implementing CRC, as well as
priorities and future goals.13 Committee members adopt concluding observations that include
suggestions and observations, and may request further information from the reporting State Party
as needed. The Committee also adopts general comments on articles, provisions, and themes of
CRC to assist States Parties in fulfilling their obligations under the Convention. These comments
address a range of issues—including juvenile justice, protection from corporal punishment and
other forms of punishment, and HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment.
Optional Protocols on Children in Armed Conflict and the Sale of
Children
The Convention has two optional protocols that provide specific protections for children: (1) the
Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict; and (2) the Optional
Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.14 Though both
Optional Protocols operate under CRC, they are independent multilateral agreements under
international law.15 The Optional Protocol on Children in Armed Conflict limits the recruitment of
children under the age of 18 for armed conflict and requires parties to provide children who have
participated in armed conflict with appropriate physical and psychological rehabilitation. It
entered into force on February 12, 2002, and has been ratified by 120 countries. The Optional
Protocol on the Sale of Children requires parties to criminalize child pornography and
prostitution, close establishments that practice such activities, and seize any proceeds. It entered
into force on January 18, 2002, and has been ratified by 126 countries.
13 For more information on Committee meetings, see “Committee on the Rights of the Child—Working Methods,” at
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/workingmethods.htm.
14 Both Optional protocols were adopted without a vote by U.N. General Assembly resolution 54/263 on May 25, 2000.
Text of the Optional Protocols and a list of States Parties are available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc-
sale.htm.
15 See Article 13 of the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children and Article 9 of the Optional Protocol on Children in
Armed Conflict.
Congressional Research Service
4
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
U.S. Actions
The United States has signed, but not ratified, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the
President has not transmitted CRC to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. In 2002,
the United States ratified the CRC Optional Protocols on
Children in Armed Conflict and the Sale of Children.
Summary of Steps in the U.S.
The Optional Protocols to CRC were considered less
Process of Making Multilateral
controversial than the Convention itself because, in the
Treaties
view of many, existing U.S. laws generally met the
The making of multilateral treaties for the
standards of the agreements.17
United States involves a series of steps that
generally include: (1) negotiation and
conclusion; (2) signing by the President; (3)
Obama Administration
transmittal to the Senate by the President,
which may include any proposed
President Obama has indicated his overall support for
reservations, declarations, and
understandings; (4) referral to the Senate
the objectives of CRC and has stated his intent to
Committee on Foreign Relations; (5)
conduct a legal review of the treaty.18 Susan Rice,
Committee consideration and report to the
appointed U.S. Permanent Representative to the United
Senate recommending approval and a
Nations, reiterated at her January 2009 confirmation
proposed resolution of ratification, which
hearing that the Obama Administration was committed
may include reservations, declarations, or
understandings; (6) Senate approval of advice
to the objectives of CRC and would review the
and consent to ratification by a two-thirds
Convention. Rice acknowledged that CRC was a
majority; (7) ratification by the President; (8)
“complicated” treaty in many respects, particularly
deposit of instrument of ratification; and (9)
given the U.S. system of federalism. She remarked that
proclamation.
the Administration needed to “take a close look at how
While the House of Representatives does
we [the United States] manage the challenges of
not participate in the treaty-making process,
domestic implementation and what reservations and
legislation implementing any treaties requires
action by both Houses of Congress.16
understandings might be appropriate in the context of ...
ratification. Rice further stated that she could provide no
information on how long it would take for the Administration to conduct a legal review of the
Convention.19
16 For more information, see, Treaties and other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate, A
Study Prepared for the Committee on Foreign Relations by the Congressional Research Service, S. Prt 106-71, 106th
Congress, 2d Session, January 2001.
17 The Clinton Administration signed the Optional Protocols on July 5, 2000, and transmitted both treaties to the Senate
on July 25, 2000 (Treaty Doc. 106-37). The Bush Administration strongly supported the ratification of the Optional
Protocols. The Senate provided its advice and consent to ratification of both agreements on June 18, 2002. The United
States became party to the treaties on December 24, 2002, and they entered into force for the United States on January
23, 2003.
18 When asked about the Convention during the 2008 presidential campaign Obama stated, “It is embarrassing to find
ourselves [the United States] in the company of Somalia, a lawless land. I will review this [treaty] and other treaties to
ensure that the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights.” See Patrick Geary, “United States: Is
Obama’s Win also a Victory for Children’s Rights?” Child Rights Information Network, November 7, 2008. A video of
President Obama’s statement is available at http://debate.waldenu.edu/video/question-12/.
19 Congressional Transcripts, Congressional Hearings, “Senate Foreign Relations Committee Holds Hearing on the
Nomination of Susan Rice to be the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations,” Congressional Quarterly,
January 15, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
5
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
On November 24, 2009, a State Department spokesperson stated that the Administration is
conducting an “interagency policy review” of CRC and other human rights treaties to which the
United States is not a party.20 The spokesperson further stated that the Administration supports the
goals of CRC and is “committed to undertaking a thorough and thoughtful review of it.”21
Previous Administrations
The Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations played a leading role in drafting the
CRC. Neither Administration supported U.S. ratification, however, due to concerns regarding the
Convention’s impact on state and federal laws, parental rights, and U.S. sovereignty. As a result,
the Convention remained under legal review during the George H.W. Bush presidency. 22
On February 16, 1995, then-U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Madeleine
Albright signed CRC on behalf of the Clinton Administration. The Administration announced that
it would send the treaty to the Senate with a number of reservations, understandings, and
declarations (RUDs) that are typically attached to treaties ratified by the United States. It stated
that it would ask for RUDs to protect states’ rights and maintain “existing tools of the criminal
justice system,” a likely reference to CRC provisions that prohibit the death penalty for minors. 23
The Administration did not submit CRC to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification,
however, due in part to strong opposition from members of the U.S. Senate, particularly Senator
Jesse Helms, then-chairperson of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (SFRC).24
The George W. Bush Administration opposed the Convention, citing “serious political and legal
concerns” with its impact on U.S. sovereignty and parental rights.25 Administration officials
acknowledged that while CRC may be a useful tool for protecting children in countries that have
ratified it, it was “misleading and inappropriate” to use the Convention as a “litmus test” for
measuring the United States’ commitment to children.26
20 Department of State Daily Press Briefing by Ian Kelly, Spokesperson, Washington, DC, November 24, 2009, at
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/nov/132362.htm.
21 Ibid.
22 The United States made recommendations on 38 of 40 substantive CRC articles. See Cynthia Price Cohen, “Role of
the United States in Drafting the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Creating a New World For Children,” Loyola
Poverty Law Journal, Vol. 9, Spring 1998.
23 U.S. Mission to the United Nations press release #26-(95), “Remarks by Ambassador Madeleine K. Albright to the
United Nations on the Occasion of the Signing of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child,” February 16, 1995.
In 2005, the Supreme Court found in Roper v. Simmons that the imposition of the death penalty on juvenile offenders is
unconstitutional. See 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
24 In 1995, Senator Jesse Helms warned President Clinton that as long as he was Chairperson of SFRC, “it is going to
be very difficult for this treaty [CRC] even to be given a hearing.” Congressional Record, Senate, Vol. 141, No. 97, p.
S 8401, June 14, 1995.
25 “United States Participation in the United Nations for 2002: Report by the Secretary of State to the Congress,”
October 2003, Part 2: Economic and Social Affairs, pp. 79-80.
26 Statement by Ambassador E. Michael Southwick in the Preparatory Committee for the General Assembly Special
Session on the Children’s World Summit, U.S. Mission to the United Nations press release #15(01), February 1, 2001.
Congressional Research Service
6
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
Congressional Perspectives
Congressional perspectives on U.S. ratification of CRC have varied. Members who support U.S.
ratification maintain that it would reaffirm the U.S. commitment to children’s rights and enhance
U.S. leadership in protecting children worldwide.27 In September 1990, for instance, the House of
Representatives passed a resolution supporting U.S. ratification, stating that “the issue of
children’s rights and their well-being is important to both the United States and the world at
large.” 28 Congressional opponents of U.S. ratification argue that the treaty would undermine U.S.
sovereignty, particularly in the context of policy areas traditionally addressed by states—
including education and juvenile justice.29 Some Members of Congress have also expressed
concern regarding the Convention’s possible impact on parental rights and responsibilities. In
April 2009, for example, Representative Peter Hoekstra introduced a resolution proposing an
amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states that the “liberty of parents” to raise and educate
their children is a “fundamental right,” and that no international treaty may “supersede, modify,
interpret, or apply” this right.30
Policy Issues
The question of U.S. ratification of CRC has generated passionate debate. This section provides
an overview of selected policy issues which have emerged during these discussions. These issues
may continue to play a role in the ratification debate—particularly if the Obama Administration
decides to seek the Senate’s advice and consent.31
Federal and State Laws
Perhaps more than other human rights treaties, CRC addresses areas that are usually considered to
be primarily or exclusively under the jurisdiction of state or local governments. In general, both
federal and state laws are consistent with the Convention’s standards; however there are some key
differences that may need to be resolved within the executive branch before CRC is transmitted to
27 See, for example, H.Res. 416 [111th], “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States
should become an international human rights leader by ratifying and implementing certain core international
conventions,” introduced on May 7, 2009, by Rep. John Lewis and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
28 H.Res. 312 [101st], “Urging the President to submit the Convention on the Rights of the Child to the Senate for its
advice and consent to ratification,” passed/agreed to in the House by a voice vote on September 17, 1990. Similar
legislation was introduced in the Senate and House during the 102nd,103rd, and 105th Congresses.
29 Former Senator Jesse Helms was a strong opponent of CRC, and in June 1995 he introduced a resolution in the 104th
Congress that reflected the concerns of some CRC opponents. The resolution stated that CRC is “fundamentally
flawed,” and “incompatible with the God-given right and responsibility of parents to raise their children.” (S.Res. 133
[104th], introduced June 14, 1995 and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.)
30 See H.J.Res. 42 [111th], introduced on April 27, 2009 and referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil
Rights, and Civil Liberties. Similar legislation was introduced in the Senate, including S.J.Res. 13 [111th] by Sen.
David Vitter on March 3, 2009, and S.J.Res. 16 [111th] by Sen. Jim DeMint on May 14, 2009. Both resolutions are
entitled “A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to parental rights,”
and were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
31 Under Article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President is responsible for making treaties by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate. Once the President transmits a treaty to the Senate, it is, under the rules of the Senate,
referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Thus, the issues for Congress discussed herein are issues that may be
included in any consideration of the Convention by SFRC and/or the full Senate.
Congressional Research Service
7
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. Areas where state and federal laws might
conflict include juvenile justice, child labor, child education, welfare, custody and visitation, and
adoption.32 State and local jurisdictions often address these issues differently and, according to
some, U.S. ratification of CRC could, for the first time, apply federal laws to issues traditionally
handled by individual states—thereby undermining the U.S. system of federalism.33 Some are
also concerned that states may not adequately enforce implementation of U.S. laws that are in
accord with the Convention.
Advocates of U.S. ratification contend that
Reservations, Understandings, and
possible conflicts between state and federal laws
Declarations that may Accompany
may be addressed through reservations,
U.S. Ratification of Multilateral
understandings, and declarations (RUDs) that
Treaties
often accompany treaty ratifications. The use of a
The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations may
“non-self-executing” declaration, for example,
recommend that the Senate approve a treaty
conditionally, granting its advice and consent subject
would require implementing legislation to bring
to certain stipulations that the President must accept
the Convention’s provisions into use—thereby
before proceeding to ratification. These stipulations
addressing any potential conflicts with U.S. laws
are generally referred to as “Reservations,
or values. In addition, a “federalism”
Understandings, and Declarations” (RUDs). The
understanding would make clear that the federal
President may also propose RUDs at the time he
transmits the treaty to the Senate or during the
government would fulfill U.S. treaty obligations
Senate’s consideration of the treaty.
where it exercises jurisdiction and take
“Reservations” are specific qualifications or
appropriate measures to ensure that states and
stipulations that modify U.S. obligations without
localities fulfill the provisions. Other supporters
necessarily changing the treaty language.
of U.S. ratification, however, contend that the
“Understandings” are interpretive statements that
inclusion of such RUDs would demonstrate the
clarify or elaborate, rather than change, the
United States’ unwillingness to fully implement
provisions of an treaty. They are generally deemed to
the Convention.35 Some proponents argue that
be consistent with the obligations imposed by the
instead of placing limiting conditions on U.S.
treaty.
ratification, U.S. law should be brought into
“Declarations” are statements of purpose, policy, or
conformance with international standards when,
position related to matters raised by the treaty in
in their view, the international standard is higher.
question but not altering or limiting any of its
Supporters of ratification also emphasize that
provisions.34
countries with a system of federalism similar to
the United States—such as Canada and Australia—ratified the Convention.36
32 For a detailed analysis of how U.S. state and federal laws may be affected by the Convention, see Cynthia Price
Cohen and Howard A. Davidson, ed., Children’s Rights in America: U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child
Compared with United States Law, American Bar Association, 1990.
33 Sally J. Cummings and David P. Stewart, Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 2002, Office of the
Legal Advisor, Department of State, p. 291.
34 Drawn in part from Treaties and other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate, A Study
Prepared for the Committee on Foreign Relations by the Congressional Research Service, S. Prt 106-71, 106th
Congress, 2d Session, January 2001.
35 RUDs accompanying U.S. ratification of human rights treaties are controversial among some analysts and
policymakers due to concerns that they might undermine the effectiveness or intent of the treaty. See “U.S. Ratification
of Human Rights Conventions: The Ghost of Senator Bricker,” by Louis Henkin, The American Journal of
International Law, Vol. 89:431, April 1995, pp. 341-350. Also see the “Effectiveness of the Convention” section.
36 For more information on this issue, see Lawrence L. Stentzel, II, “Federal-State Implications of the Convention” in
Children’s Rights in America: U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child Compared with United States Law, Cynthia
Price Cohen and Howard A. Davidson, ed., American Bar Association, 1990, pp. 57-86. Parts of this section are drawn
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
U.S. Sovereignty
Opponents of CRC argue that U.S. ratification would undermine U.S. sovereignty. They maintain
that since ratified treaties are considered the “supreme Law of the Land”37 under the U.S.
Constitution, the Convention could supersede both national and local laws.38 Some opponents
hold that if the United States ratifies the Convention, the CRC Committee—a panel of 18
independent experts that monitors states’ compliance with the treaty—would have authority over
U.S. government and private citizens’ actions toward children. A number of critics, for example,
have taken issue with some CRC Committee decisions regarding parental rights, abortion, and the
role of national governments in raising children.39
Supporters of U.S. ratification maintain that federal and state laws generally meet the
requirements of the Convention, thereby posing little threat to U.S. sovereignty. They also
contend that the inclusion of RUDs—such as a non-self executing declaration that requires
implementing legislation to bring the Convention’s provisions into use—could address any
additional sovereignty concerns. Proponents further emphasize that under the Convention, the
CRC Committee may only comment on the reports of States Parties or make general
recommendations. They emphasize that the Committee relies primarily on States Parties to
comply with CRC obligations and has no established rules for treaty non-compliance.40
Supporters also contend that enforcement mechanisms under CRC are weaker than those of other
human rights treaties ratified by the United States.41
Parental Rights
A key area of debate regarding U.S. ratification of CRC is its possible impact on the rights of
parents. Some critics have expressed strong concern that the Convention will give the U.N.
Committee on the Rights of the Child or the U.S. government authority over the family structure
and how parents choose to raise their children.42 Many believe that parents should be able to raise
their children in a way that reflects their morals and values without interference from outside
parties, and some have argued that under CRC parental responsibility exists only in the context of
(...continued)
from archived CRS Report 96-736, Human Rights Treaties: Some Issues for U.S. Ratification, by Vita Bite.
37 Article six of the U.S. Constitution states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
38 See, for example, Joseph Abrams, “Boxer Seeks to Erode Treaty that May Erode U.S. Rights,” FoxNews.com,
February 25, 2009. For further discussion of this issue, see Martin S. Flaherty, “History Right?: Historical Scholarship,
Original Understanding, and Treaties as “Supreme Law of the Land,” Columbia Law Review, Vol. 99, No. 8, December
1999, pp. 2095-2153.
39 An Analysis of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child’s Concluding Observations, National Center
for Home Education, November 11, 1999, updated March 2007.
40 See Jonathan Todres, et al., The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, An Analysis of Treaty Provisions and
Implications of U.S. Ratification, Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2006, p. 28.
41 Ibid. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, for example, provides for “state-to-state” complaints.
CRC, on the other hand, states that only the CRC Committee may comment on the report of a state party.
42 See (1) Michael Smith, “Home-schooling: U.N. Treaty Might Weaken Families,” The Washington Times, January
11, 2009, and (2) Andie Coller, “Parental Rights: The New Wedge Issue,” Politico, April 8, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
9
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
its role in furthering the independent choices of children.43 Moreover, CRC opponents argue that
U.S. ratification would encourage children to disregard parental authority, possibly leading them
to file complaints against or sue their parents.44 Such actions, they argue, would undermine
parental rights and give children inappropriate influence over their own lives.45
In particular, some Convention opponents are concerned about how the CRC Committee may
interpret the Convention’s provisions on the “best interest of the child,” which is referenced in
several Articles, including 3, 9, 18, and 40. Critics maintain that allowing a U.N. Committee to
interpret what is in the best interest of U.S. children severely undermines the role of U.S. parents
to determine how to raise, educate, and discipline their children.46 Opponents have also taken
issue with other CRC provisions that, in their view, could be interpreted to undermine parental
rights and responsibilities:
• Privacy—Article 16(1) states, “No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or
unlawful interference with his or her privacy.... ” Some have interpreted this to
mean that parents may not have the right to search their children’s rooms or be
notified if a child is arrested or undergoes an abortion.
• Freedom of expression—Article 13(1) provides that the child shall have the
“right to freedom of expression,” including “freedom to seek, receive, and impact
information and ideas of all kinds.” Some contend that this could be interpreted
to allow children to speak their minds at all times, regardless of parental authority
or discipline.
• Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion—Some maintain that Article
14(1), which states that “States Parties shall respect the right of the child to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” might give children the right to
object to their parents’ religious beliefs or training.
• Access to information—Article 17 states that States Parties shall ensure that
“the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and
international sources.... ” Some interpret this to mean that children have a right to
access any type of information regardless of their parents’ preferences, including
television, books, and other sources they find objectionable.47
• Education—Critics assert that Article 28(1), which states that States Parties
recognize “the right of the child to education,” could lead to the government or
43 “United Nations Special Session on Children Set to Meet,” National Center for Home Education, May 3, 2002.
44 When emphasizing these concerns, some opponents point to a 1997 CRC Committee report on Ethiopia, which
recommended that “the limitation of the right to legal counsel of children be abolished as a matter of priority.” (U.N.
document, CRC/C/15/Add.67, January 24, 1997.) Some also reference the Committee’s 1999 recommendation to
Belize expressing concern regarding “the absence of an independent mechanism to register and address complaints
from children concerning violations of their rights under the Convention. The Committee suggests that an independent
child-friendly mechanism be made accessible to children.... ” (U.N. document, CRC/C/15/Add.99, May 10, 1999).
45 Michael P. Farris, “Nannies in Blue Berets: Understanding the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child,”
parentalrights.org, December 15, 2008.
46 “Congressional Action: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,” Lifesite News, July/August
1993, at http://www.lifesitenews.com/waronfamily/unicef/homeschoolalert.html.
47 CRC Article 17 further states that children should especially have access to sources “aimed at the promotion of his or
her social, spiritual, and moral well-being and physical or mental health.” Critics hold that Article 17 could also prevent
parents from restricting children’s access to pornographic material or other sources of information that contradict the
parents’ values.
Congressional Research Service
10
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
CRC Committee mandating public schooling or interfering with the right of
parents to home-school or send their children to private school. Some are
concerned that Article 29(1), which addresses elements that shall be included in a
child’s education, could lead to government interference in private school and
home-school curricula.48
• Corporal punishment—Article 19(1) states, “no child should be subjected to
physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment,
maltreatment or exploitation,” at school or by a parent or legal guardian. Some
interpret this to mean that parents may not be allowed to discipline their children
though corporal punishment, such as spanking.49
• Freedom of association—Some are concerned that Article 15(1), which calls on
States Parties to “recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and
to freedom of peaceful assembly” could give children the right to associate with
people that his or her parents do not approve of, including cults or gangs.50
Supporters of the Convention emphasize that CRC was established not to circumvent the role of
parents but to protect children against government intrusion and abuse. They contend, for
example, that Article 16 on the child’s right to privacy is meant to protect children not from their
parents but from government intrusion into the child’s or family’s privacy. 51 Similarly,
proponents maintain that Article 13 on a child’s right to freedom of expression is intended to
protect children from states that undermine parental authority by denying children the right to
artistic, religious, or other forms of expression. Some also make a similar argument regarding
Article 14 on a child’s right to thought, conscience, and religion. In their view, the Article is not
meant as a means for children to challenge their parent’s religion or discipline, but to protect
children from state interference in these areas, particularly if children are separated from their
families. Some supporters have cited the experiences of Jewish children during the Holocaust and
the plight of Christian children in China as examples of instances where children should be
protected from government actions regarding religion.52
Similarly, supporters emphasize that CRC provisions on children’s access to information (Article
17) and freedom of association (Article 15) are meant to protect children not from parental
authority, but from government intrusion in these areas.53 CRC supporters also note that CRC
48 Oppose the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, National Center for Home Education, November 1, 1999,
updated March 2007.
49 To support this point of view, critics point to a CRC Committee concluding observation for Canada in 2003
recommending “that the State party adopt legislation to remove the existing authorization of the use of ‘reasonable
force’ in disciplining children and explicitly prohibit all forms of violence against children, however light, within the
family in schools and in other institutions where children may be placed.” (U.N. document, CRC/C/15/Add.215,
October 27, 2003.)
50 Oppose the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, National Center for Home Education, November 1, 1999,
updated March 2007.
51 See (1) Opposition to the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Exploring Counterarguments and Seeking
Clarification, presentation by the U.S. Fund for UNICEF, Voices for America’s Children, Homeschooler’s U.N. Club,”
at http://childrightscampaign.org/documents/OppositiontotheCRC.pdf; and (2) Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, “The
Family Supporting Nature of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child,” in The U.N. Convention on the Rights
of the Child, by Jonathan Todres et al., Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2006, p. 37.
52 Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, “The Family Supporting Nature of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child,” in
The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, by Jonathan Todres et al., Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2006, p. 45.
53 Some argue, for example, that CRC Article 17 is meant to encourage, and not discourage, states from providing
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
11
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
provisions that address a child’s right to education (Articles 28 and 29) are not intended to
undermine the role of parents in choosing a child’s education. Rather, they are meant to establish
and protect children’s rights in countries with poor or unbalanced educational systems. In some
countries, for example, girls are forbidden or discouraged from receiving an education. In such
cases, supporters argue, ratification of the Convention could play a role in ensuring equal access
to education for both girls and boys.
Many CRC supporters also emphasize what they view as the Convention’s strong support for the
role of parents and the family structure. They contend that CRC’s provisions—including those
regarding education, corporal punishment, and references to the “best interest of the child”—
should be balanced with what many perceive as the Convention’s overall emphasis on the
important role of parents in raising their children. Proponents support this view by citing Article
7, which states, “as far as possible, the child has a right to be known and be cared for by his or her
parents,” and Article 3, which states:
States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or
her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal
guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her [emphasis added].
Supporters also emphasize the Convention’s references to the role of the family and parents in 18
other articles, as well as the CRC preamble, which states that the family is “the fundamental
group of society,” and recognizes, “... the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or
her personality, should grow up in a family environment.... ”54 Advocates further emphasize that
there is no language in the Convention that allows for prosecutions, lawsuits, or investigations of
parents or guardians. Any such actions, they argue, would be based on existing U.S. laws rather
than CRC provisions or recommendations of the CRC Committee.55
To alleviate concerns regarding parental rights, some have suggested that if the United States
were to ratify CRC, it may wish to include RUDs addressing the issue. When considering
ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Elimination on All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW), for instance, the Clinton Administration proposed a “private conduct”
reservation which stated that the United States “does not accept any obligation under the
Convention to regulate private conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and U.S. law.”56
Some have also suggested including RUDs that specifically address parental rights. One proposed
(...continued)
children with access to information that may be beneficial to their well being. They emphasize, however, that parents
must determine how much or what types of information to which their children are exposed.
54 The parent-child role is referenced in the following CRC Articles: 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23,
24, 27, 37, and 40. See “The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Answers to 30 Questions,” by
Cynthia Price Cohen and Susan H. Bitensky, Child Rights International Research Institute, 1994.
55 Myths and Facts on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, 2009.
56 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women,” Report, September 12, 1994. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office (Senate
Exec. Rept. 103-38, 103d Congress, 2d Session), pp. 6-8. For more information, see CRS Report R40750, The U.N.
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW): Issues in the U.S.
Ratification Debate, by Luisa Blanchfield.
Congressional Research Service
12
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
understanding, for example, states that parents are primarily responsible for their children’s
upbringing and development and for making decisions related to the best interest of the child.57
Abortion
There is significant debate regarding what impact, if any, U.S. ratification of CRC might have on
domestic abortion policy. The ambiguous nature of some CRC provisions relating to these issues
has left the door open for broad interpretation by both opponents and supporters of the
Convention.
Critics of U.S. ratification have raised questions regarding the Convention’s possible impact on
state parental notification laws for children undergoing abortion. In particular, they are concerned
about Article 16(1), which states, “No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful
interference with his or her privacy, family, home, or correspondence.... ” Some fear that this
“right to privacy” could ultimately allow children to choose to have abortions without notifying
or receiving guidance from their parents.58 Opponents of the Convention express concern with
CRC Committee decisions that appear to criticize countries that restrict abortion.59 Additionally,
some have argued that Article (24)(2)(d) of CRC, which states that States Parties “shall ... take
appropriate measures ... to ensure appropriate pre-natal and post-natal health care for mothers,”
could be interpreted to mean that children may undergo abortions without parental notification.
Supporters of the Convention contend that the treaty does not take a position on abortion or when
a child’s life begins. They maintain that CRC text allows individual countries to interpret the
treaty in a way that aligns with their national abortion policies. They note that countries with
strict anti-abortion laws, such as the Holy See (Vatican), the Philippines, and Ireland, have ratified
the Convention.60 Proponents counter claims that the Convention encourages abortion by citing
CRC Committee statements that appear to criticize countries for their high rates of abortion and
teen pregnancy. In its report on Russia in 1993, for instance, the Committee expressed concern
with “frequent recourse to abortion as what appears to be a method of family planning.”61
57 David M. Smolin, “Overcoming Religious Objections to the Convention on the Rights of the Child,” Emory Law
Journal, Vol. 20, Spring 2006, pp. 81-110.
58 Patrick F. Fagan, “How U.N. Convention on Women’s and Children’s Rights Undermine Family, Religion, and
Sovereignty,” Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder #1407, February 5, 2001.
59 In a 1994 report on Chad, for example, the CRC Committee expressed its concern “at the impact that punitive
legislation regarding abortion can have on maternal mortality rates for adolescent girls. The Committee suggests that a
comprehensive and multi-disciplinary study be undertaken to understand the scope of adolescent health problems,
including the negative impact of early pregnancy and illegal abortion.” Some contend that the Committee was not
criticizing Chad’s abortion laws, but focusing on the plight of girls who fall ill or die because of illegal abortions. (U.N.
document, CRC/C/15/Add.107, August 24, 1999.)
60 “Myths and Facts on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC),” The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, 2009.
61 U.N. document, CRC/C/15/Add.4, February 18, 1993. In the report, the Committee also noted with particular
concern “the tendency towards the breakdown of family culture as regards abandoned children, abortion, the divorce
rate ... ”
Congressional Research Service
13
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
Negotiating History of the Convention Addressing Abortion
The negotiating history of CRC’s drafting leads many to conclude that the Convention is
“abortion neutral.”62 During negotiations on the treaty text, the issue of abortion and where life
begins was debated among U.N. member states.63 Ultimately, in the interest of compromise and to
allow for the maximum number of ratifications, CRC drafters agreed to not address the issue in
the main articles of the Convention. The intent was to leave the text purposefully vague so that
ratifying countries could interpret the provisions to align with their own domestic law and
policies on abortion.64 For example, the Convention’s definition of a child as “every human being
below the age of eighteen years” intentionally does not set a lower age limit, leaving the States
Parties to determine where life begins. This intentional ambiguity allows countries to apply their
own interpretations to other provisions that address children’s rights, particularly Article 6, which
recognizes that “every child has the inherent right to life,” and states that States Parties shall
ensure “to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.”
Nevertheless, some States Parties to CRC, including China, France, Luxembourg, and Tunisia,
attached reservations to CRC stating that Article 6 should not interfere with national legislation
and policies regarding abortion.
The preamble of CRC has also raised some questions regarding the Convention’s position on
abortion.65 It specifically mentions the needs of the child before birth, stating “the child ... needs
special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”
Some maintain that this statement implies that CRC protects the rights of the so-called “unborn,”
which could require States Parties to outlaw abortion.66 Though the preamble is not an operational
paragraph of the Convention, some experts emphasize that under international law the preamble
to a treaty could be relevant to its interpretation.67 Others contend, however, that preambular
statements do not carry the same force as articles of the Convention.68 The legislative history of
62 According to international law, a treaty may be interpreted by taking into account the preparatory work and
negotiations related to the treaty text. Specifically, Article 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
states, “Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty
and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or
to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to Article 31: (a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or
obscure; or (b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.” The United States signed the Vienna
Convention on April 24, 1970, but the Senate has not given its advice and consent to ratification. According to the State
Department, the United States “considers many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to
constitute customary international law on the law of treaties.”
63 For information on the history of CRC negotiations, see (1) Sharon Detrick, ed., The United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child: A Guide to the ‘Travaux Preparatoires’; Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, London, 1992; (2)
Jonathan Todres and Louise N. Howe, “What the Convention on the Rights of the Child Says (and Doesn’t Say) About
Abortion and Family Planning,” in The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, by Jonathan Todres et al.,
Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2006, pp. 163-175; and (3) Sharon Detrick, A Commentary on the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, 1999, pp. 133-136.
64 Philip Alston, “The Unborn Child and Abortion Under the Draft Convention on the Rights of the Child,” Human
Rights Quarterly, Vol. 12, 1990, p. 163.
65 For further discussion of the role of the preamble in the abortion debate, see “The Unborn Child and Abortion Under
the Draft Convention on the Rights of the Child,” Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 12, 1990, pp. 165-172.
66 William L. Saunders, The Convention on the Rights of the Child and the U.N. Special Session on Children, Family
Research Council, 2001, available at http://www.worldfamilypolicy.org/New%20Page/forum/2001/saunders.pdf.
67 Article 31(2) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states, “The context for the purpose of the
interpretation of a treaty shall comprise.... its preamble and annexes ... ”
68 Jonathan Todres and Louise N. Howe, “What the Convention on the Rights of the Child Says (and Doesn’t Say)
About Abortion and Family Planning,” in The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, Jonathan Todres et al.,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
CRC indicates that the drafters did not intend for the preambular sentence to protect the rights of
children before birth. That sentence, which was originally included in the Declaration on the
Rights of the Child, was reportedly included as a compromise during negotiations on Article 1
that sought to define a “child.”69 CRC drafters were concerned that it could be interpreted as
protecting the rights of the “unborn,” and in the official record of the negotiation included a
statement clarifying that the preambular paragraph did not intend to prejudice States Parties’
interpretation of Article 1 on the definition of a child or any other CRC provisions.70
The United States generally agreed that the draft Convention should not aim to “institutionalize”
a particular point of view on abortion because doing so would make the Convention
“unacceptable from the outset to countries espousing a different point of view.” During
negotiations on the Convention text, the U.S. delegation insisted that CRC must be worded in
such a way “that neither proponents nor opponents of abortion can find legal support for their
respective positions in the draft Convention.”71
Family Planning
Some CRC opponents are concerned that Article 24, which focuses on the right of the child to
enjoy the highest attainable standard of health, could require parents to make or expose their
children to family planning choices that contradict their values. Specifically, Article 24(2)(f)
states that States Parties “shall ... take appropriate measures ... to develop preventive health care,
guidance for parents and family planning education and services.” Some worry that this provision
could require contraceptive distribution or “pornographic sex education” in schools.72 Similarly,
some argue that it could allow children access to contraceptives without the knowledge of, or
permission from, their parents.
Supporters of U.S. ratification argue that CRC provides for States Parties to make their own
interpretations and decisions regarding family planning education and services. They emphasize
that Article 24(2)(f) allows for States Parties to take “appropriate [emphasis added] measures ...
to develop family planning education and services” thereby leaving it to individual countries to
interpret what is appropriate in the context of their national policies and laws. Supporters also
contend that concerns regarding the Convention’s position on family planning should be balanced
with the Convention’s recognition of the role of parents in raising children.73 They point out that
countries with a wide range of family planning policies have ratified the Convention—including
China, the Holy See (Vatican), Canada, Ireland, and the Philippines.74
(...continued)
Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2006, p. 166.
69 Cynthia Price Cohen, “A Guide to Linguistic Interpretation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child” in
Children’s Rights in America: U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child Compared with United States Law, Cynthia
Price Cohen and Howard A. Davidson, ed., American Bar Association, 1990, p. 42.
70 See U.N. document, E/CN.4/1989/48, March 2, 1989, paragraph 43. The record states, “In adopting this preambular
paragraph, the Working Group does not intend to prejudice the interpretation of Article 1 or any other provision of the
Convention by States Parties.”
71 U.N. document, E/CN.4/L.1542, March 10, 1980.
72 William L. Saunders, The Convention on the Rights of the Child and the U.N. Special Session on Children, Family
Research Council, World Family Policy Forum, 2001.
73 Article 3(2), CRC.
74 The Holy See included a reservation stating that it “interprets the phrase ‘family planning education and services’ in
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
15
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
The Effectiveness of the Convention
A significant area of debate among CRC supporters and opponents is the effectiveness of the
Convention, particularly in countries that have already ratified it. Some critics agree with CRC’s
overall goal of protecting children’s rights internationally, but they do not believe that the treaty is
an effective mechanism for achieving this goal. As evidence of this, they emphasize that countries
that many regard as abusers of children’s rights—including Sudan, Democratic Republic of the
Congo, and China—are party to the Convention. Similarly, some argue that instead of helping
children, ratification of CRC may serve as a facade for governments that abuse children’s rights.
Critics have also asserted that reservations and declarations that some countries attached to the
Convention are at odds with the purpose of the treaty, possibly undermining its intent and
effectiveness.75 A number of Islamic countries, for example, attached reservations stating that the
Convention would not apply to provisions that they deem incompatible with Islamic Shari’a law
or values.76 Some are concerned that the ambiguity of such reservations could allow for broad
interpretations of the Convention’s provisions, particularly in the area of child marriage and
education for girls. Other States Parties also included reservations that aim to apply CRC only
when it is compatible with domestic laws. Holy See (the Vatican), for example, included a
reservation stating that the application of the Convention [should] be “compatible in practice with
the particular nature of the Vatican City State and of the sources of its objective law.” Other
countries, such as Sweden and Norway, have objected to the inclusion of these reservations.
When filing their own reservations and declarations, they state that the reservations of some
countries “may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving state [to the Convention].” 77
Supporters of CRC contend that it has enhanced children’s rights in a number of countries that
have ratified the Convention. Human Rights Watch, for example, reports that many countries
have used CRC as a basis for enhancing existing legislation and improving children’s rights.78
Similarly, a 2004 U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF) review of 62 States Parties to CRC found that
more than half of the countries studied had incorporated Convention provisions into their
domestic laws, and nearly one-third of the countries had incorporated provisions into their
national constitutions.79 UNICEF also reports that CRC played a role in establishing over 60
(...continued)
Article 24(2), to mean only those methods of family planning which it considers morally acceptable, that is, the natural
methods of family planning.”
75 For more information, see William A. Schabas, “Reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child,” Human
Rights Quarterly, Vol. 18.2, May 1996, pp. 472-491.
76 States Parties that included similar reservations include Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco,
Saudi Arabia, and Syria. The full list of reservations and declarations by States Parties is at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/
menu3/b/treaty15_asp.htm.
77 The reservations of Sweden and Norway specifically state: “A reservation by which a state party limits its
responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may cast doubts on the
commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to
undermining the basis of international treaty law.” Ireland, Portugal, and Finland have also included reservations with
similar wording.
78 Human Rights Watch also reports that under CRC some countries have appointed special ombudspersons or envoys
for children. It also reports that the CRC Committee has “developed new standards of protection and pressed
governments for specific reforms.” See Promises Broken: An Assessment of Children’s Rights on the 10th Anniversary
of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Human Rights Watch, November 1999.
79 UNICEF press release, “Despite Progress, Children’s Rights Far from Universal,” November 20, 2004.
Congressional Research Service
16
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
independent human rights institutions for children in 38 countries.80 Ultimately, however,
supporters generally acknowledge that while progress has been made, many countries still have a
long way to go in implementing the Convention. The 2004 UNICEF review, for instance, found
that while high-level political commitment to CRC is essential to developing new laws to protect
children’s rights, social change will occur only when high-level commitment is matched by
“effective law enforcement, allocation of adequate resources and the engagement of all levels of
society.”81
The Convention as an Instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy
Many CRC supporters hold that ratification of the Convention would strengthen U.S. credibility
abroad and give the United States additional fora in which to pursue the advancement of
children’s rights.82 Specifically, they argue that U.S. non-ratification leads foreign governments to
question the sincerity of the United States in addressing children’s rights, thereby hindering the
ability of U.S. diplomats to advocate child rights in countries with poor human rights records.83
They contend that many countries view the United States as hypocritical because it expects other
countries to comply with international standards that it does not itself follow.84 Some, for
example, point to U.S. statutes that require U.S. foreign assistance to be subject to a country’s
compliance with “internationally recognized human rights.”85 Further, some argue that U.S.
ratification would provide the United States with an opportunity to influence international laws
and standards in the area of children’s rights. They maintain that the United States, with its
history of democracy and policies that respect children, could share its experience and expertise
with other countries that aim to protect children’s rights.86
Opponents of CRC argue that the United States is the international leader in advancing children’s
rights and that U.S. non-ratification does not impact its ability to advocate children’s rights to
foreign governments. They maintain that the United States has demonstrated its commitment to
children by ratifying the Optional Protocols to the Convention and by implementing laws and
80 Ibid.
81 Ibid. Also see, UNICEF press release, “Experts Discuss the Impact of CRC,” November 20, 2007.
82 International Implications of the United States Ratifying the CRC, presentation by Carl Triplehorn, Save the
Children, May 20, 2005.
83 In 1979, then-Secretary of State Christopher Warren stated that U.S. “... nonadherence to the [human rights] treaties
prejudices our [the United States’] participation in the development of international law with respect to human rights.”
See, U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. International Human Rights Treaties. Hearings, 96th
Congress, 1st session. November 14-16, 19, 1979. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979, pp. 19-20.
84 The United States has called for countries to comply with CRC in U.N. fora even though the United States is not
itself a party to the treaty. For example, in a November 2006 statement to the U.N. General Assembly, a U.S.
representative stated, “The Government of Sudan, which is a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict,
must accept responsibility for the widespread problem of recruitment and use of child soldiers and take immediate steps
to halt these practices.” U.S. Mission to the United Nations Press Release #368(06), November 28, 2006.
85 For example, Sec. 116(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (P.L. 87-195) states, “No assistance
may be provided ... to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of
internationally recognized human rights.... ” Similarly, Sec. 502B(a)(1) of that Act states, “a principal goal of the
foreign policy of the United States shall be to promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human
rights by all countries.” Further, Sec. 502B(a)(2) states, “ ... no security assistance may be provided to any country the
government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”
86 Opposition to the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Counterarguments and Seeking Clarification, presentation
by U.S. Fund for UNICEF, Voices for America’s Children, Homeschooler’s U.N. Club.
Congressional Research Service
17
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues
policies that protect and preserve the rights of children in the United States. Some critics of
ratification also contend that CRC and, more broadly, other international human rights treaties,
are designed for countries with lesser human rights traditions.87 They argue that U.S. laws far
exceed the standards established in such agreements, and that ratifying the treaties would not
benefit U.S. citizens. Moreover, some are reluctant to leave the question of U.S. obligations under
international treaties to other countries—particularly those with low human rights standards.
Critics have also expressed concern that U.S. ratification of CRC and other human rights treaties
could be used as a basis for unfounded political criticisms of the United States in international
fora.88
Author Contact Information
Luisa Blanchfield
Specialist in International Relations
lblanchfield@crs.loc.gov, 7-0856
87 Chrisopher J. Klicka, Esq. And William A. Estrada, Special Report: The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child,
The Most Dangerous Attack on Parent’s Rights in the History of the United States, Home School Legal Defense
Association, November 1, 1999, updated March 2007.
88 See (1) Belinda Clark, “The Vienna Convention Reservations Regime and the Convention on Discrimination Against
Women” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 85, April 1991, pp. 281-321; and (2) Rebecca J. Cook,
“Reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women,” Virginia Journal of
International Law, Vol. 30, 1990, p. 643.
Congressional Research Service
18