CRC was adopted by the UN in 1989. It is an internationally recognized instrument adopted by UN members, which urges nations to act in a particular way with regards to children. The convention seeks to protect children from violence, exploitation, guarantee nutrition, free compulsory primary education and secure adequate health care among other essential child rights. The convention gives emphasis to the child’s best interests given the fact that they are the most vulnerable people in the society. Given the good intentions enshrined in this convention, almost all UN member states have adopted the convention, with the exception of Somalia, South Sudan and the United States. The United States government has been reluctant in tabling the convention in the senate for ratification.
While the constitution and a number of legislations have been essential instruments in advocating for child rights in the US, the adoption of the CRC would have been a significant step towards achieving this goal. This author opines that CRC guarantees the best interests of the child rights more than US laws seeking to enforce the same rights. Article 3 of the CRC articulates that the primary concern while making decisions which will affect the child should be the interests of the child. This Article applies not only to budgetary allocation and policy measures, but also to law makers. Additionally, Article 5 succinctly encourages parents to address matters affecting a child in a way that is related to the evolving capacities of the child. Therefore, it seeks to encourage that primal consideration should be given to the child before any decision that affect it is made.
On the contrary, US laws have given parents a lot control and power over their children that they are at liberty to make decisions that unfavorable to them. The views of a child, even from one who is capable of understanding the consequences of its actions, are ignored by parents in the US. While the CRC seems to reduce the role of the parent to that of guidance and directions consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, parents in the US still engage in giving their children forceful advice. That’s a child is compelled to adopt and submit to the views and wimps of its parents. This is actually the essential reason why a number of parental organizations and conservative groups have vehemently opposed the adoption of the CRC by the US government. The best interests of a child include protecting the child from any form maltreatment, physical or mental violence. This tends to conflict with the view of some American parents that they have the right to discipline their children as a form of guidance. It is in the interest of the child to be given direction and guidance, rather than parents insisting on the right to discipline their children. Punishing a child does not necessary address the issues that affect that child. However, it is vital to note that the convention does not outlaw disciplining children, only that it gives more weight to offering direction and guidance instead. This cements the argument that CRC is better placed to guide the society to making decisions in the best interests of the child, whatever the circumstances.
Works Cited
Blanchfield, Luisa . United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues. New York: DIANE Publishing, 2010.
Georgeson, Jan and Jane Payler. International Perspectives On Early Childhood Education And Care. New York: McGraw-Hill International, 2013.
