The usa already has protections for children even if the occasion arises where the system fails so although it is astonishing that we haven't ratified the convention it doesn't mean that we abuse the human rights of children.
sourceOriginally posted by Rat Faced@8 July 2004 - 10:18
Protection from violence, abuse, hazardous employment, exploitation, abduction or sale.
Special protection in times of war and no child under 15 should ever have to fight in an army.
Protection from disease and famine.
Free compulsory primary education.
Adequate health care.
Equal treatment regardless of gender, race or cultural background.
Freedom to express opinions and be listened to.
Play.
The stance of the United States towards the central issue of the rights of children is of grave concern. During these negotiations, the United States has consistently sought to eliminate or minimize references to the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the Declaration and Plan of Action, and has refused to accept language that refers to the Convention as the primary international standard for the promotion and protection of children's rights. The U.S. has also sought to remove references to the "rights" of children, in favor of language supporting the "well-being" of children.
The United States has also tried to roll back international agreements to provide adolescents with sexual and reproductive health education and services. It has opposed the inclusion of the word "services" related to sexual and reproductive health programs, arguing that the word is code for "abortion."
Q: Why hasn't the United States ratified the Convention?
A: Some critics in the United States have lobbied heavily against ratification of the convention, claiming that the convention will undermine parental authority, interfere with parents' ability to raise and discipline their children, and will elevate the rights of children above the rights of parents. In reality, the convention repeatedly refers to the importance of the parent-child relationship, and requires governments to respect the rights and duties of parents.
The most significant contradiction between the convention and U.S. law and practice is in relation to the death penalty. The Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibits the use of the death penalty for offenses committed before the age of eighteen. However, twenty-two U.S. states allow executions of juvenile offenders, and currently there are eighty-two juvenile offenders on death row in the United States. In the last five years, nine executions of juvenile offenders were carried out in the United States, and two more are scheduled in the next month. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Iran are the only other states to have carried out such executions in the last three years.
During the negotiations for the Special Session, the European Union, supported by numerous other governments, sought the inclusion of language prohibiting the use of the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole for crimes committed by children. The United States, joined only by Iran, rejected the proposal.
Q: Does the US have any other problems with the Convention?
A: Traditionally, the United States has recognized civil and political rights (such as the rights to expression, assembly and due process), but not economic, social and cultural rights (such as the right to education, health care and an adequate standard of living). The convention includes both. Also, the United States also argues that many of the issues addressed by the Convention on the Rights of the Child lie primarily within the jurisdiction of the states, rather than the federal government. For example, in the United States, individual states are responsible for education, and for setting laws related to the administration of juvenile justice.
Federalism in the U.S. should not be a bar to ratifying the Convention. Other countries with federal systems have ratified the Convention, including Brazil, Germany and Mexico. The U.S. may also adopt a reservation or understanding to address this issue, and in fact, has done so in the past in relation to other international treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
It isn't because the US doesn't believe in human rights for children rather it is a case of "We are the USA..the greatest nation on earth... and we WILL NOT be told how to run our lives by anyone else.
I would like to point out that in general there is, certainly at state level, action to favour the well being of children even if it sometimes doesn't achieve the nirvana it would like. In my state for example the state will under certain criteria pay for one parent to stay home to raise the children instead of having to both work.
Ok now i don't defend the US stance here however i would like to point to the case of the jamie Bulger killers and the reaction to their release in the UK as a possible guide to the USAs way of thinking.During the negotiations for the Special Session, the European Union, supported by numerous other governments, sought the inclusion of language prohibiting the use of the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole for crimes committed by children. The United States, joined only by Iran, rejected the proposal
I do think the convention is a good thing and i would like the USA to not only sign up but strictly comply as well, but this being the USA one has to take into consideration of the monetary costs involved as pointed out in the quote...shame on us
Edit: rat perhaps this should have had its own threadTraditionally, the United States has recognized civil and political rights (such as the rights to expression, assembly and due process), but not economic, social and cultural rights (such as the right to education, health care and an adequate standard of living). The convention includes both.
Reply With Quote
[/b][/quote]
Bookmarks