U.N. Rights of the Child     8/7/1997

Introduction

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 20, 1989. It was signed by Madeleine Albright, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, on February 16, 1995, and will be sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after President Clinton attaches certain "reservations." If that committee passes the Convention, it will be sent to the full Senate for a final ratification vote.

If ratified, the Convention would be a treaty. Article VI, section 2 of the United States Constitution says that:

...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.

Clearly, the signing of treaties is a very serious matter, for they supersede all state and federal laws. That is why the Constitution requires ratification by two-thirds of the Senate, rather than just a simple majority.

The Clinton administration has made ratification of the children's treaty a major policy objective. That is not surprising, given the fact that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a former chairman of the Washington-based Children's Defense Fund, where she supported the radical legal doctrine of children's rights and promoted this U.N. Convention.

Treaty Provisions

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child would make Congress the national guardians of children, charged with seeking "the best interests of the child" (Article 3), and answerable to the United Nations. Yet the government's definition of a child's best interests is often very different from a parent's definition. For example, the Convention allows the government to separate a child from their parents if the child has been abused or neglected (Article 9), but those terms are not clearly defined. Since many of the agencies and organizations that support this treaty define abuse as spanking, there would be severe legal implications for many American families.

The Convention also usurps parental authority by embracing the view that children are autonomous agents who are capable, in all areas, of making adult decisions and dealing with adult situations. This radical legal doctrine stands in stark contrast to the traditional concept, upheld in America, that children are "minors" in need of parental protection.

Assuming that children deserve the same legal rights as adults, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child grants some of the following "rights" to all children:

In short, government would assume the primary role of rearing your children.

• The "right to express [his or her own views] freely in all matters affecting the child...." (Article 12)

• The unlimited "right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice." (Article 13)

• The right to "manifest one's religion or beliefs," subject only to the limits of the law. (Article 14)

• The right to not "be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference" with privacy, correspondence, etc. (Article 16)

• The right to family planning education and services. (Article 24)

• The right to "profess and practice his or her own religion." (Article 30)

Other provisions of the Convention require registration of all children at birth (Article 7), and could result in federal curriculum development. It would be mandated that all education should include "development of...the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations" (Article 29). In addition, the federal government would be responsible for giving families "appropriate assistance" in "the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities," by the creation of state institutions and facilities for child care (Article 18). In short, government would assume the primary role of rearing your children.

One important question remains unanswered: Who will interpret the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, and how will it be enforced? Each nation that ratifies this treaty must submit to the authority of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, created "for the purpose of examining the progress made by States Parties [nations] in achieving the realization of the obligations undertaken in the present Convention" (Article 43).

The Committee on the Rights of the Child consists of ten individuals who are considered experts in areas covered by the Convention, such as child development and education. Each signatory nation nominates one individual, then ten are chosen from that group according to an "equitable geographical distribution" and variety of "principle legal systems" (Article 43). Therefore, one individual nation will never have a guaranteed voice among the ten committee members.

It is also noteworthy that no enforcement mechanism is clearly explained, yet Article 43 allows the Committee on the Rights of the Child to establish its own rules of procedure. Will those procedural rules include rules for enforcing the treaty? If so, the treaty gives the committee a blank check, and the rules they develop would most likely be very subjective, responsive only to the opinions of committee members.

Conclusion

Supporters of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child argue that the United States should ratify this treaty as a symbol of support for the principle of "human rights." However, the objectionable provisions of this treaty make it clear that the United Nations' definition of "human rights violations" is very different from the view historically taken by the United States. Those parts of the treaty that are not objectionable (i.e. restrictions on child labor), could easily be supported by passage of a non-binding, written resolution that carries no force of law.

President Clinton has promised to attach "reservations" to this treaty before sending it to the Senate. Those reservations would attempt to allay citizen fears and state differences of opinion that the administration might have with certain provisions of the treaty. Yet those reservations would be insufficient protection against the force of law carried by a treaty, especially when Article 51 declares that "A reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted." President and Mrs. Clinton's views of the "rights" that should be held by children are simply not aligned with the views of mainstream America, and the fate of parents and their children should not rest in their hands.

The United States Constitution and current laws are sufficient to govern its people. This nation rests on the belief that civil government has a duty to protect man's inalienable rights. Indeed, our founding documents presuppose that rights are God-given. They are not created by our government -- or the United Nations. The egregious crimes committed against children in other nations are not lawful here. Thus, there is no need to sign a treaty that attempts to do what our existing laws have already accomplished.

Printer Friendly Version

Recent Articles

LABOR DAY 2010: Excessive influence of BIG LABOR on Obama Administration and Congress has been disastrous for American workers and the Nation’s economy

OP-ED BY WENDY WRIGHT! Next stop on the Obama apology tour

OP-ED BY PENNY NANCE! Pelosi's Pontificating On the Ground Zero Mosque

Congress Should Slow the Spending, End the Earmarks and Plug the Pork

'Wal-Mart moms' will take angst out on someone

On the Horizon: Week of August 9

Prop. 8 Case Strikes at the Heart of Democracy

Get a Running Start in 2011 with CWA of Texas!

On the Horizon: Week of August 2

New Voter Resources for Pastors and Laymen