US ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child

The United States has signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but is one of only two UN members not to have ratified it.

History and status

The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention. It commented on nearly all of the articles, and proposed the original text of seven of them. Three of these come directly from the United States Constitution and were proposed by the administration of President Ronald Reagan. On February 16, 1995, Madeleine Albright, at the time the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, signed the Convention. It has not so far been ratified; the United States historically has employed a cautious approach to ratification of treaties: for example, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was only ratified 28 years after being signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Though generally supportive of the Convention, President Bill Clinton did not submit it to the Senate for its advice and consent. President Barack Obama has described the failure to ratify the Convention as 'embarrassing' and has promised to review this. The United States is the only country except Somalia which has not ratified the Convention.

Ratification of the UNCRC requires all states party to the treaty to submit reports, outlining the implementation of the treaty on the domestic level, to the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, a panel of child rights experts from around the world. States must report initially two years after acceding to (ratifying) the Convention and then every five years.

Groups favoring ratification

Hundreds of organizations in the United States support ratification of the Convention, including groups that work with children such as the Girl Scouts and the Kiwanis. The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child argues that criticisms mentioned by opponents of the convention "are the result of misconceptions, erroneous information, and a lack of understanding about how international human rights treaties are implemented in the United States", and that ratification "would establish a useful framework from which our leaders could create cost-effective and comprehensive policies and programs that address the specific needs of children and families."

World Vision, which is a large evangelical Christian relief NGO, is a typical supporter of ratification of the Convention. Smolin states that this support is probably more typical of worldwide evangelical Christian opinion because, globally, Christians who seek to help the "vulnerable, poor, needy, and oppressed...apparently find more inspiration than fear in the words of the CRC." ^{, page 109} Other organisations which have supported ratification include Church World Service, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States, Church Women United, the National Council of Churches and the International Rescue Committee (www.theIRC.org).

Groups opposing ratification

The non-ratification of the treaty so far is due to opposition by some political and religious conservatives to the treaty, some of whom claim it conflicts with the United States Constitution.

Active opposition to the Convention in the United States has been concentrated in politically conservative groups.^{, page 83} Senator Jesse Helms, the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, described it as a "bag of worms," an effort to "chip away at the U.S. Constitution." Some Americans oppose the CRC with the reasoning that the nation already has in place everything the treaty espouses, and that it would make no practical difference.

Issues

Sovereignty and federalism

Legal concerns over ratification have mostly focused on issues of sovereignty and federalism. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that to some significant degree, no government—federal, state, or local—may interfere with the parent-child relationship. The Heritage Foundation sees the conflict as an issue of international control over domestic policy: "Although not originally promoted as an entity that would become involved in actively seeking to shape member states’ domestic policies, the U.N. has become increasingly intrusive in these arenas. They express concern about "sovereign jurisdiction, over domestic policymaking" and "preserving the freedom of American Civil Society", and argue that the actual practice of some UN Committees has been to review national policies that are unrelated, or are marginally related to the actual language of the Convention.

Convention supporters point out that, under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Convention cannot override the Constitution because no treaty can override the Constitution (Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)). In addition, as a "non-self-executing treaty", the convention does not grant any international body enforcement authority over the U.S. and/or its citizens, but merely obligates the U.S. federal government to submit periodic reports on how the provisions of the treaty are being met (or not.) The sole enforcement mechanism within the Convention is the issuing of a written report.

Death penalty and life imprisonment

Article 37 of the Convention prohibits sentencing children under 18 years old to death or life imprisonment with no opportunity for parole.

In 2002, 22 U.S. states allowed for the execution of juvenile offenders. This ceased after the 2005 Supreme Court decision Roper v. Simmons, which found juvenile execution unconstitutional as "cruel and unusual punishment". The decision cited the Convention as one of several indications that "the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty".

The 2010 decision Graham v. Florida limited the sentencing of juveniles to of life imprisonment with no opportunity for parole to the crime of homicide. As of the Graham decision, only 6 U.S. states prohibited such sentences in all cases.

Parental rights

The claim by conservatives that "this Treaty would virtually undermine parents’ rights as we know it in the United States."

Some supporters of homeschooling have expressed concern that the Convention will subvert the authority of parents. One of the most controversial tenets of the Convention are the participatory rights granted to children. The Convention champions youth voice in new ways. Article 12 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 ... the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child..."

Smolin, otherwise a proponent who urges U.S. reservations to the convention, argues that Article 5, which includes a provision stating that parents "provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention", "is couched in language which seems to reduce the parental role to that of giving advice".^{, pages 81 & 90} The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child argues that the Convention protects parental responsibility from government interference.

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

The Campaign for the U.S. Ratification of the CRC provides information rebutting this and other proposed conflicts. The CRC does not outline any specific interference with school curriculums, nor would ratification prevent parents from homeschooling their children. In addition, it recognizes the family “as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children…” (Preamble to the CRC) and repeatedly underscores the pivotal role parents play in their children’s lives. (Particularly with regard to Articles 3, 5, 7-10, 14, 18, 22, and 27.1) Under the Convention, parental responsibility is protected from government interference. Article 5 states that Governments should respect the rights, responsibilities, and duties of parents to raise their children. There is no language in the CRC that dictates the manner in which parents are to raise and instruct their children.

Other Arguments

David Smolin argues that the objections from the religious and political conservatives stem from their view that the U.N. is an elitist institution, which they do not trust to properly handle sensitive decisions regarding family issues. He suggests that legitimate concerns of critics could be met with appropriate reservations by the U.S.^{, page 110}