Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)

Introduction

The Convention on the Rights of the Child stands as the most comprehensive and widely ratified international treaty dedicated exclusively to the legal protection of children. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1989 and entering into force in 1990, the Convention transformed children from passive objects of welfare into recognized holders of enforceable rights under international law. Its near-universal ratification gives it unparalleled normative authority, positioning it as a central pillar of contemporary human rights law and a reference point for domestic legislation, judicial interpretation, and public policy across diverse legal systems.

The Convention was drafted against a historical backdrop in which children were largely protected indirectly through family law, social welfare regimes, or fragmented human rights provisions. Earlier instruments, including the 1924 Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, articulated moral commitments but lacked binding legal force. The Convention on the Rights of the Child marked a decisive legal shift by consolidating civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights within a single treaty and by imposing clear obligations on states parties to respect, protect, and fulfil those rights. This integrated structure rejected the traditional separation between categories of rights and reflected a holistic understanding of childhood development grounded in dignity, equality, and agency (Alston & Tobin, 2019).

A defining feature of the Convention is its explicit recognition of children as autonomous rights-holders while simultaneously acknowledging their evolving capacities and dependence on family and community structures. The treaty balances state responsibility with parental roles, emphasizing support rather than substitution. Concepts such as the “best interests of the child,” non-discrimination, the right to life and development, and the right of children to be heard operate not as abstract principles but as legally operative standards intended to guide legislation, administrative action, and judicial decision-making. These general principles function as interpretive anchors across the Convention’s fifty-four articles and have been repeatedly invoked in domestic courts and international monitoring practice (Kilkelly, 2015).

The legal significance of the Convention extends beyond its substantive rights catalogue. Its implementation framework, centred on periodic state reporting to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, has generated a dense body of interpretive guidance through General Comments and concluding observations. This monitoring process has influenced constitutional reforms, child protection systems, education policy, juvenile justice standards, and migration law in many jurisdictions. The Convention also stands out for formally incorporating the role of non-governmental organisations and United Nations agencies into its supervisory architecture, strengthening transparency and accountability in ways uncommon in earlier human rights treaties (Freeman, 2018).

Despite its normative strength, the Convention on the Rights of the Child operates within real-world constraints. Persistent gaps remain between legal commitments and lived realities, particularly in contexts of armed conflict, poverty, displacement, disability, and systemic discrimination. The Convention does not provide automatic remedies, nor does it override domestic legal systems. Its effectiveness depends on political will, institutional capacity, and sustained engagement by courts, legislators, civil servants, and civil society. Understanding the Convention, therefore, requires attention not only to its text, but also to how its obligations are interpreted, implemented, and contested in practice.

This article provides a detailed, practice-oriented analysis of the Convention on the Rights of the Child as a binding instrument of public international law. It explains the treaty’s purpose, scope, core obligations, and legal effects, while grounding the discussion in concrete examples drawn from domestic and international practice. By combining doctrinal analysis with real-world application, the article aims to equip students, researchers, and practitioners with a clear understanding of how the Convention functions as law, how it shapes decision-making, and why it remains a central reference point in contemporary debates on children’s rights and state responsibility.

1. Historical and Legal Context of the Convention

1.1 Pre-1989 development of children’s rights

Before the late twentieth century, international protection of children was shaped primarily by a welfare-based model rather than a rights-based legal framework. Children were generally viewed as vulnerable dependants in need of care, protection, and moral guidance, with responsibility resting mainly on families, charitable institutions, and, in limited circumstances, the state. Legal instruments addressing children focused on protection and assistance, not on enforceable entitlements held by children themselves. As a result, children were treated as passive beneficiaries of adult decision-making rather than as individuals with legally cognisable interests (Freeman, 2018).

The first significant international attempt to articulate standards specific to children was the 1924 Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child, adopted by the League of Nations. The Declaration was brief and non-binding, consisting of general moral principles that emphasised care, nourishment, relief in distress, and protection from exploitation. Its language framed children as objects of adult responsibility rather than subjects of rights. Still, it introduced the idea that childhood warranted distinct international concern and laid an early normative foundation for later developments (Veerman, 1992).

The 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, expanded this framework into ten principles and reflected post-war human rights thinking. It acknowledged the need for special safeguards due to children’s physical and mental immaturity and stressed access to education, health care, and protection from neglect and exploitation. Even so, the 1959 Declaration remained a soft-law instrument. It imposed no binding legal obligations on states and offered no enforcement or monitoring mechanisms. Its influence was primarily political and educational rather than juridical (Alston and Tobin, 2019).

During the same period, children’s interests appeared indirectly in binding human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These instruments included provisions relevant to children, particularly regarding family protection, education, and nationality, but they did not construct a coherent legal regime centred on the child as a rights-holder. The absence of an integrated and enforceable framework increasingly came to be seen as a structural weakness, especially as evidence grew of persistent child labour, child mortality, trafficking, and abuse across different regions.

By the late 1970s and 1980s, international legal scholarship and advocacy began to converge around a rights-based approach to childhood. This shift reframed children as holders of inherent rights grounded in human dignity, while recognising their evolving capacities and need for appropriate protection. The move toward a binding treaty reflected dissatisfaction with purely declaratory instruments and a growing consensus that children’s rights required the same legal status and seriousness as other human rights (Doek, 2014).

1.2 Adoption of the Convention in 1989

The adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989 resulted from a decade-long drafting process within the United Nations, initiated by a proposal from Poland in 1978. The drafting took place in an open-ended working group of the UN Commission on Human Rights and involved extensive participation by states, international organisations, and non-governmental actors. This inclusive process enabled negotiation across ideological, cultural, and legal traditions, resulting in a text that garnered broad international support (Cantwell, 2017).

Political consensus emerged around several core ideas: the universality of children’s rights, the indivisibility of different categories of rights, and the need to balance child autonomy with parental responsibility. The Convention was adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly on 20 November 1989, a symbolic date marking the thirtieth anniversary of the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child. The absence of dissent reflected the careful calibration of the text and its framing as a treaty focused on protection and development rather than ideological confrontation.

The Convention entered into force on 2 September 1990, following the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification, in accordance with its final provisions. Ratification proceeded at an unprecedented pace. Within a few years, the vast majority of UN member states had become parties, embedding the Convention within domestic legal systems across diverse political and constitutional contexts. This rapid uptake signalled strong global acceptance of the idea that children’s rights merited binding international protection (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2021).

The Convention’s near-universal ratification gives it unique legal and normative significance. It is widely regarded as the most widely ratified human rights treaty in history, a status that enhances its authority in treaty interpretation, state practice, and the development of customary international law. Its provisions are routinely cited by courts, legislators, and international bodies as authoritative standards for assessing state conduct affecting children. The breadth of ratification also reinforces the Convention’s role as a common legal language for children’s rights, facilitating dialogue and accountability at both national and international levels (Kilkelly, 2015).

2. Purpose and Object of the Convention on the Rights of the Child

2.1 Core objectives

The primary purpose of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is to recognise children as independent holders of legal rights under international law. Prior to its adoption, children were largely addressed through the rights and duties of adults, particularly parents or guardians, or through welfare-oriented state obligations. The Convention altered this legal positioning by affirming that children possess rights by virtue of their inherent dignity as human beings, not as a consequence of benevolence, protection, or dependency. This recognition has significant legal consequences, as it requires states to justify decisions affecting children against legally defined standards rather than discretionary assessments of welfare or social utility (Freeman, 2018).

A second core objective lies in the integration of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights within a single binding instrument. Earlier international treaties tended to separate these categories, both normatively and institutionally. The Convention deliberately departed from that structure, reflecting an understanding that children’s development depends on the simultaneous enjoyment of multiple, interconnected rights. Access to education, for example, cannot be meaningfully realised without health, nutrition, protection from exploitation, and respect for the child’s identity and views. By consolidating these rights in one treaty, the Convention established a unified legal framework that reflects the lived reality of childhood rather than abstract doctrinal classifications (Alston and Tobin, 2019).

This integrated approach also served a strategic legal function. It prevented states from prioritising certain rights while neglecting others under the guise of policy choice. Civil and political rights such as freedom of expression or due process in juvenile justice were placed alongside economic and social rights such as health care and education, reinforcing the principle that all are essential to the child’s dignity and development. The Convention thus set a clear expectation that children’s rights must be addressed comprehensively within domestic legal and policy systems.

2.2 Holistic and indivisible rights framework

The Convention adopts a holistic and indivisible conception of rights, explicitly rejecting any formal hierarchy among them. Its structure and interpretive practice reflect the view that no single right can be fully realised in isolation. The four general principles—non-discrimination, the best interests of the child, the right to life and development, and respect for the views of the child—operate across all substantive provisions and guide their application in concrete situations. This design ensures that rights are interpreted in relation to one another, rather than applied mechanically or selectively (Doek, 2014).

The rejection of hierarchy carries practical implications for legislation and policy design. States are expected to assess the impact of laws and administrative measures on the full spectrum of children’s rights, not only on those traditionally associated with child protection. For instance, migration policies affecting family reunification engage rights related to family life, identity, participation, and development simultaneously. A narrowly framed policy response risks violating the Convention even when motivated by legitimate state interests, because it fails to account for the cumulative effect on the child’s overall situation.

In domestic law, this holistic framework has encouraged the use of child impact assessments and cross-sectoral coordination among public authorities. Education policy, health services, child protection systems, and juvenile justice cannot be designed in isolation without risking inconsistency with Convention obligations. The holistic approach, therefore, functions as both a normative principle and a governance tool, shaping how states structure decision-making processes affecting children (Kilkelly, 2015).

2.3 Protection, provision, and participation

A widely used analytical lens for understanding the Convention’s purpose is the division of children’s rights into three functional dimensions: protection, provision, and participation. Protection rights address the need to shield children from harm, abuse, exploitation, and violence. They include safeguards against child labour, trafficking, sexual exploitation, and inhuman or degrading treatment. Provision rights focus on the material and social conditions necessary for children’s development, such as access to health care, education, an adequate standard of living, and social security. These rights impose both immediate and progressive obligations on states, depending on their nature and available resources (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2021).

Participation rights represent the most transformative element of the Convention. They affirm the child’s right to express views, access information, and be heard in matters affecting them, with due weight given to age and maturity. This recognition marked a legal shift in international law by challenging entrenched assumptions about children’s incapacity to contribute meaningfully to decision-making. Participation rights do not require states to defer automatically to children’s preferences, but they do impose a legal duty to listen, consider, and justify outcomes in light of the child’s expressed views (Lundy, 2007).

The inclusion of participation rights reshaped legal practice in areas such as family law, child protection proceedings, education governance, and youth justice. Courts and administrative bodies increasingly recognise that excluding children from decisions that affect their lives undermines both procedural fairness and substantive outcomes. By embedding participation alongside protection and provision, the Convention established a balanced model of childhood that recognises vulnerability without denying agency, and dependency without extinguishing voice.

3. Who Is Bound by the Convention

3.1 States Parties as primary duty-bearers

The Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes states parties as the primary duty-bearers responsible for ensuring the effective enjoyment of children’s rights. Legal obligations arise upon ratification or accession, creating binding commitments under international law. These obligations are not aspirational; they require concrete action through legislation, administration, budgeting, and judicial practice. States must align domestic legal frameworks with the Convention’s standards and ensure that public authorities act consistently with its provisions (Alston and Tobin, 2019).

State obligations under the Convention are commonly articulated through the tripartite framework of duties to respect, protect, and fulfil. The duty to respect requires states to refrain from actions that directly interfere with children’s rights, such as arbitrary detention of minors or discriminatory exclusion from education. The duty to protect obliges states to prevent third parties, including private individuals, institutions, or corporations, from violating children’s rights. This is particularly relevant in contexts involving abuse, exploitation, or unsafe working conditions. The duty to fulfil requires proactive measures to facilitate, promote, and provide for the realisation of rights, including the establishment of services, institutions, and remedies accessible to children (Doek, 2014).

These obligations apply across the full range of rights recognised by the Convention. Civil and political rights often entail immediate obligations, while economic, social, and cultural rights may involve progressive realisation, subject to available resources. Even so, states remain bound by minimum core obligations, including non-discrimination and the adoption of deliberate, concrete steps towards full implementation. Failure to act, delay without justification, or reliance on policy discretion does not absolve states of responsibility under the Convention (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2021).

3.2 Territorial and jurisdictional scope

The Convention applies to all children within a state’s jurisdiction, not solely to those holding the nationality of the state party. Jurisdiction is interpreted broadly and encompasses any situation in which a state exercises effective authority or control over a child. This approach reflects the Convention’s emphasis on protection based on presence and vulnerability rather than formal legal status. As a result, migrant children, asylum seekers, refugees, and stateless children fall within the scope of state obligations while they are under the authority of the state (Cantwell, 2017).

This jurisdictional reach has particular significance in migration and asylum contexts. Decisions concerning detention, age assessment, family reunification, and access to education or health care directly engage Convention obligations. States are required to assess such decisions against the child’s best interests and to ensure procedural safeguards appropriate to age and maturity. Policies designed primarily for border control or migration management cannot lawfully disregard children’s rights without breaching the Convention’s standards (Kilkelly, 2015).

The Convention’s application in extraterritorial contexts has also gained attention, especially where states exercise control beyond their borders through military operations, offshore processing arrangements, or bilateral agreements affecting children. While international practice remains contested, there is growing recognition that Convention obligations may arise whenever a state’s actions have a direct and foreseeable impact on children under its effective control. This interpretation reinforces the protective purpose of the treaty and limits the ability of states to avoid responsibility through jurisdictional formalism (Skogly, 2012).

3.3 Role of parents, families, and communities

Although states parties are the primary duty-bearers, the Convention does not displace the role of parents, families, and communities. Instead, it establishes a complementary relationship between state responsibility and parental authority. The family is recognised as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of the child. Parents or legal guardians retain primary responsibility for upbringing and development, while the state assumes a supportive and supervisory role (Freeman, 2018).

This balance is central to the Convention’s legitimacy and practical operation. State intervention is justified when necessary to protect the child’s rights, but it must be proportionate and respectful of family life. Excessive interference risks undermining parental autonomy, while insufficient intervention may expose children to harm. The Convention requires states to navigate this tension by providing assistance, guidance, and social support to families, rather than defaulting to coercive measures (Alston and Tobin, 2019).

A key concept structuring this relationship is the “evolving capacities” of the child, articulated in Article 5. This principle recognises that children’s ability to exercise their rights develops over time and varies according to individual maturity. Parents are expected to provide direction and guidance in a manner consistent with this gradual evolution, while states must ensure that legal and administrative systems adapt accordingly. In practice, this means that younger children may require greater protection and representation, while older children and adolescents should enjoy increasing autonomy and participatory opportunities (Lansdown, 2005).

The concept of evolving capacities has influenced domestic law in areas such as medical consent, education choices, and juvenile justice. It reinforces the idea that children are neither the property of their parents nor miniature adults, but rights-holders whose agency expands progressively. By embedding this principle, the Convention offers a nuanced legal framework that accommodates dependency, protection, and autonomy without collapsing them into rigid categories.

4. General Principles of the Convention

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is structured around four general principles that inform the interpretation and application of all other provisions. These principles do not operate as isolated rights; they function as cross-cutting legal standards that shape how states design laws, conduct administrative processes, and resolve individual cases involving children. Their normative weight is reinforced by consistent reliance on them in the practice of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and in domestic jurisprudence (Doek, 2014).

4.1 Non-discrimination (Article 2)

Article 2 establishes the obligation to ensure that all rights under the Convention apply to every child without discrimination of any kind. The provision is deliberately broad, covering discrimination based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, disability, birth, or other status. Importantly, the prohibition extends not only to discrimination directed at the child, but also to discrimination arising from the status, activities, or beliefs of the child’s parents or family members. This expansive formulation reflects an awareness that children often experience exclusion indirectly through their social or legal environment (Freeman, 2018).

The principle of non-discrimination imposes both negative and positive obligations. States must refrain from discriminatory treatment, but they must also take proactive measures to identify and address structural inequalities that prevent certain groups of children from enjoying their rights on an equal basis. Equal treatment in formal terms is insufficient where factual inequalities persist. This has particular relevance for children in vulnerable situations, including migrant children, ethnic minorities, children with disabilities, and those living in poverty (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2021).

A clear example arises in access to education for migrant or minority children. Domestic laws or administrative practices that restrict school enrolment based on immigration status, language barriers, or lack of documentation risk violating Article 2 when they result in exclusion or inferior educational provision. Even where education is formally available, failure to provide language support or culturally appropriate teaching may amount to indirect discrimination. The Convention requires states to ensure that education systems are accessible and responsive to diversity, rather than neutral in ways that perpetuate exclusion (Lundy and Byrne, 2017).

4.2 Best interests of the child (Article 3)

Article 3 requires that the best interests of the child be treated as a primary consideration in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by courts, administrative authorities, legislative bodies, or private institutions. The formulation “a primary consideration” signals that the child’s interests must carry substantial weight in decision-making, without automatically overriding all other legitimate considerations. The principle demands a structured assessment of how different options affect the child, supported by reasoning that demonstrates genuine engagement with the child’s situation (Kilkelly, 2015).

The legal content of the best interests principle has been clarified through international and domestic practice. It requires an individualized assessment rather than reliance on general assumptions about childhood or family life. Relevant factors may include the child’s age, identity, family environment, health, safety, and expressed views. Decision-makers must identify these elements, balance them transparently, and explain how the outcome serves the child’s interests. Failure to conduct such an assessment risks rendering the principle meaningless as a legal standard (Alston and Tobin, 2019).

Courts frequently rely on the best interests principle in family law disputes, child protection proceedings, and immigration cases. Legislatures also invoke it when designing laws affecting children, such as adoption frameworks or juvenile justice systems. In administrative contexts, the principle functions as a constraint on discretion, requiring authorities to justify decisions that significantly affect children’s lives. Its strength lies not in providing predetermined answers, but in imposing a disciplined method of reasoning centred on the child (Zermatten, 2010).

4.3 Right to life, survival, and development (Article 6)

Article 6 recognises every child’s inherent right to life and obliges states to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the survival and development of the child. The inclusion of survival and development alongside life signals that the Convention adopts a broad understanding of what it means to protect life. The obligation extends beyond preventing arbitrary deprivation of life and encompasses the conditions necessary for children to grow physically, mentally, emotionally, socially, and culturally (Doek, 2014).

This expansive interpretation has significant implications for public policy. Preventable child mortality, malnutrition, lack of access to health care, unsafe living conditions, and environmental degradation all fall within the scope of Article 6. States are required to address these risks through coordinated health, social, and environmental policies. Development is understood as a holistic process, meaning that education, family support, and protection from violence are integral to fulfilling this obligation (Freeman, 2018).

The right also has relevance in situations of armed conflict, displacement, and humanitarian crisis. States must take feasible measures to protect children from the effects of violence and to promote recovery and reintegration. Article 6 thus operates as a foundational provision linking survival with dignity and long-term well-being, rather than reducing it to biological existence alone (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2021).

4.4 Respect for the views of the child (Article 12)

Article 12 affirms the right of the child who is capable of forming views to express those views freely in all matters affecting them, with due weight given in accordance with age and maturity. This provision establishes a clear legal obligation on states to create opportunities for children to be heard and to take their views seriously. It does not require decision-makers to follow the child’s wishes in every case, but it does require that the child’s perspective be genuinely considered as part of the decision-making process (Lundy, 2007).

The procedural dimension of Article 12 is particularly significant in judicial and administrative proceedings. Children must be provided with appropriate means to express their views, either directly or through representation, and procedures must be adapted to their age and understanding. Ignoring a child’s voice or treating participation as a formality undermines both the fairness and legitimacy of the process. The obligation applies across a wide range of contexts, including education, health care, migration decisions, and child protection measures (Kilkelly, 2015).

A practical illustration can be found in family law proceedings concerning custody or contact arrangements. Increasingly, courts require mechanisms for hearing children’s views through child-inclusive practices, trained professionals, or judicial interviews. When properly implemented, participation enhances the quality of decisions by providing insight into the child’s lived experience and by fostering a sense of respect and agency. Article 12 thus represents one of the most transformative elements of the Convention, reshaping how law engages with children not merely as objects of protection, but as participants in decisions that shape their lives.

Also Read

• The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

• Treaty of Brest-Litovsk

• Treaty of Rome

• Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties

• The Paris Agreement Explained

5. Substantive Rights under the Convention

The Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out a comprehensive catalogue of substantive rights that regulate nearly every dimension of a child’s life. These rights translate the Convention’s general principles into concrete legal entitlements and corresponding state obligations. They are drafted broadly to accommodate different legal systems, while remaining sufficiently precise to guide legislation, policy, and adjudication in practice.

5.1 Civil rights and freedoms

The Convention affirms that children enjoy fundamental civil rights and freedoms traditionally associated with adults, adapted to their status and evolving capacities. These include the right to a name and nationality, preservation of identity, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and protection of privacy. By explicitly extending these rights to children, the Convention rejects the assumption that civil liberties begin only at adulthood (Freeman, 2018).

The legal implications of these provisions are particularly evident in the areas of birth registration and nationality law. States are required to ensure that every child is registered immediately after birth and has the right to acquire a nationality. These obligations aim to prevent statelessness and legal invisibility, which expose children to heightened risks of exploitation and exclusion. Failures in birth registration systems can result in denial of access to education, health care, and social services, demonstrating how civil rights function as gateways to the enjoyment of other rights (Cantwell, 2014).

Freedom of expression and thought under the Convention does not operate without limits, but any restrictions must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. Children’s expression may be regulated to protect the rights of others or public order, yet blanket or paternalistic limitations undermine the Convention’s recognition of children as developing rights-holders. Protection of privacy further constrains state and institutional practices, particularly in education, child protection, and digital environments, where surveillance and data collection increasingly affect children’s lives (Livingstone and Third, 2017).

5.2 Family environment and alternative care

The Convention places the family at the centre of the child’s development and recognises the right of the child to grow up in a family environment whenever possible. Rights related to family unity, parental care, and regular contact with both parents reflect the understanding that family relationships are integral to the child’s emotional and social well-being. Separation from parents is permitted only when necessary for the child’s best interests and subject to procedural safeguards, including review by competent authorities (Alston and Tobin, 2019).

When children cannot remain with their families, the Convention requires states to provide appropriate alternative care. Such care must respect the child’s cultural, religious, and linguistic background and prioritise stability and continuity. Institutional placement is not prohibited, but it is framed as a measure of last resort. This approach has influenced child welfare reforms in many jurisdictions by encouraging family-based care solutions and stricter oversight of residential institutions (Doek, 2014).

Adoption, including intercountry adoption, is subject to detailed safeguards under the Convention. Adoption must be authorised by competent authorities and guided exclusively by the child’s best interests. Intercountry adoption is recognised as a subsidiary option, appropriate only when suitable care cannot be found in the child’s country of origin. These provisions seek to prevent improper financial gain, trafficking, and coercion, while allowing adoption to function as a legitimate child protection measure rather than a market-driven practice (Smolin, 2013).

5.3 Health, education, and social rights

The Convention recognises the right of every child to the highest attainable standard of health, to education, and to an adequate standard of living. These rights impose obligations on states to develop accessible and inclusive public services that address children’s physical, mental, and social development. Health rights encompass preventive care, treatment of illness, nutrition, and maternal health, reflecting an integrated understanding of child well-being (Freeman, 2018).

The right to education is framed as both a social entitlement and a developmental tool. States must ensure free and compulsory primary education, promote access to secondary education, and direct education toward the full development of the child’s personality, talents, and respect for human rights. School discipline must respect the child’s dignity, reinforcing the Convention’s broader rejection of punitive or degrading treatment (Kilkelly, 2015).

These rights are subject to the principle of progressive realisation, acknowledging that full implementation may depend on available resources. Even so, states remain bound by immediate obligations, including non-discrimination and the adoption of deliberate measures aimed at continuous improvement. Resource constraints cannot justify inaction or regression, particularly where minimum standards essential to survival and development are at stake (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2021).

5.4 Protection rights

Protection rights form a substantial portion of the Convention and address risks arising from violence, exploitation, and abuse. States are required to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, neglect, maltreatment, and exploitation, including sexual abuse, child labour, trafficking, and involvement in illicit activities. These obligations extend beyond criminalisation and require preventive strategies, reporting mechanisms, victim support, and effective remedies (Doek, 2014).

The Convention also mandates special protection for children in particularly vulnerable situations. Refugee children are entitled to appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance, regardless of whether they are accompanied by parents. Children with disabilities are recognised as entitled to special care designed to promote dignity, self-reliance, and active participation in the community. These provisions challenge states to move beyond charity-based approaches and to address structural barriers that limit inclusion and equality (Lansdown, 2005).

Protection rights illustrate the Convention’s dual focus on prevention and response. States must address the root causes of harm, such as poverty, discrimination, and social exclusion, while also ensuring effective intervention when violations occur. The breadth of these provisions underscores the Convention’s role as a comprehensive legal framework aimed at safeguarding children’s rights across diverse social and institutional contexts.

6. Implementation Obligations of States

The Convention on the Rights of the Child does not limit itself to declaring substantive rights; it establishes a detailed framework governing how those rights must be implemented at the domestic level. Implementation obligations translate international commitments into operational duties that affect legislation, public administration, budgeting, and education. These obligations recognise that legal recognition alone is insufficient unless accompanied by institutional structures capable of giving practical effect to children’s rights.

6.1 Legislative and administrative measures (Article 4)

Article 4 requires states parties to undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures to implement the rights recognised in the Convention. This obligation places domestic law at the centre of compliance and demands more than symbolic endorsement of international norms. States must review existing legislation, identify inconsistencies with the Convention, and enact reforms where necessary to ensure compatibility with its standards (Alston and Tobin, 2019).

Alignment with the Convention often involves constitutional amendments, statutory reform, and changes in regulatory frameworks. Laws governing family relations, education, child protection, migration, health care, and juvenile justice are particularly affected. In practice, alignment also requires the removal of discriminatory provisions, the establishment of child-sensitive procedures, and the creation of remedies accessible to children. Administrative measures are equally significant, as rights are frequently realised or denied through day-to-day decision-making by public authorities rather than through formal legislation alone (Kilkelly, 2015).

Effective implementation further depends on coordination across government sectors. Fragmented responsibility undermines compliance, especially where children’s rights intersect multiple policy domains. States are therefore expected to develop coherent strategies, monitoring mechanisms, and institutional mandates that ensure consistent application of the Convention across all levels of governance (Doek, 2014).

6.2 Resource allocation and progressive realization

Article 4 draws a distinction between different categories of obligations by recognising that economic, social, and cultural rights may be realised progressively, subject to the maximum extent of available resources. This acknowledgment reflects practical realities while preserving the binding nature of the obligations. Progressive realisation does not permit indefinite delay or selective implementation; it requires continuous, deliberate efforts toward full realisation, supported by transparent and accountable resource allocation (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2021).

Immediate obligations apply across all rights, regardless of resource constraints. These include the duty of non-discrimination, the obligation to take concrete steps toward implementation, and the requirement to protect children from serious harm. States cannot justify failure to meet minimum standards essential to survival, development, or dignity by invoking limited resources alone. Budgetary decisions must demonstrate that children’s rights have been given due priority and that available resources are used effectively (Freeman, 2018).

The distinction between immediate and progressive obligations has practical implications for public finance and policy evaluation. Child-focused budgeting, impact assessments, and data collection are increasingly used to assess whether states are meeting their obligations in a structured and measurable way. Such tools reinforce the Convention’s expectation that resource allocation decisions affecting children be reasoned, evidence-based, and subject to public scrutiny (Lundy and Byrne, 2017).

6.3 Awareness-raising and education (Article 42)

Article 42 obliges states to make the principles and provisions of the Convention widely known to both adults and children through appropriate and active means. This requirement reflects the understanding that rights cannot be effectively claimed or protected if they are unknown. Awareness-raising is therefore an essential component of implementation, not a supplementary activity (Cantwell, 2017).

Education about children’s rights must be tailored to different audiences. For children, information should be accessible, age-appropriate, and culturally relevant. Schools play a central role in this process, both by integrating children’s rights into curricula and by modelling rights-respecting environments in daily practice. Child-friendly versions of the Convention are commonly used in educational settings to explain rights and responsibilities in clear language that children can understand and apply to their own experiences (Lansdown, 2005).

Awareness-raising also targets professionals whose work affects children, including teachers, judges, police officers, health workers, and social service providers. Training programmes and professional guidelines help ensure that the Convention’s standards inform decision-making across institutions. By embedding knowledge of children’s rights within education systems and professional practice, Article 42 strengthens the Convention’s capacity to operate as a living legal framework rather than a distant international text.

7. Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanisms

The Convention on the Rights of the Child relies on a distinctive monitoring system designed to promote compliance through dialogue, transparency, and expert evaluation rather than coercive enforcement. This framework reflects both the realities of international law and the Convention’s emphasis on continuous improvement in the protection of children’s rights. Monitoring mechanisms play a central role in translating treaty obligations into sustained domestic practice.

7.1 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is the treaty body responsible for monitoring implementation of the Convention. It is composed of eighteen independent experts of high moral standing and recognised competence in the field of children’s rights. Members are elected by states parties but serve in their personal capacity, not as state representatives. Considerations of equitable geographical distribution and representation of different legal systems inform the composition of the Committee, reinforcing its legitimacy and expertise (Doek, 2014).

The Committee’s mandate includes examining state reports, issuing concluding observations, adopting General Comments, and engaging with United Nations agencies and civil society actors. Its work is interpretive rather than adjudicative. The Committee does not issue binding judgments or impose sanctions; instead, it clarifies the meaning of Convention provisions and assesses how states give them effect in law and practice. General Comments have become particularly influential, as they elaborate normative content, identify minimum standards, and provide guidance on complex issues such as the best interests of the child, participation rights, and state obligations under Article 4 (Alston and Tobin, 2019).

Working methods emphasise constructive dialogue. State delegations appear before the Committee to discuss their reports, respond to questions, and explain policy choices. This interactive process allows the Committee to probe gaps between legal commitments and actual outcomes, while giving states an opportunity to contextualise challenges and outline reform plans. Although the Committee lacks enforcement power, its authority derives from expertise, consistency, and the cumulative weight of its interpretive practice (Freeman, 2018).

7.2 State reporting procedure

The state reporting procedure is the core mechanism through which compliance with the Convention is monitored. States parties are required to submit an initial report within two years of ratification and periodic reports every five years thereafter. These reports must describe legislative, administrative, and other measures adopted to implement the Convention, as well as obstacles encountered and progress achieved. The reporting obligation applies across all areas of children’s rights and requires states to engage in systematic self-assessment (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2021).

Following examination of a report, the Committee issues concluding observations that identify positive developments, areas of concern, and concrete recommendations. These observations function as authoritative guidance rather than formal determinations of responsibility. They are expected to inform domestic law reform, policy planning, and budgetary priorities. States are also encouraged to disseminate concluding observations widely and to integrate them into national implementation strategies (Kilkelly, 2015).

Follow-up has gained increasing importance within the reporting system. The Committee now requests targeted information on priority recommendations and assesses whether states have taken measurable steps to address identified shortcomings. This iterative process reinforces accountability over time and discourages superficial compliance. While the reporting procedure depends heavily on state cooperation, its public and repetitive nature creates reputational incentives that can influence domestic political debate and institutional reform (Cantwell, 2017).

7.3 Role of NGOs and UN agencies

Article 45 of the Convention formally integrates non-governmental organisations and United Nations agencies into the monitoring framework. NGOs may submit alternative or shadow reports that provide independent assessments of state compliance and highlight issues omitted or understated in official reports. These submissions often draw on grassroots data, case studies, and the lived experiences of children, offering perspectives unavailable through government reporting alone (Lundy and Byrne, 2017).

United Nations agencies such as UNICEF, the International Labour Organization, and the World Health Organization contribute technical expertise and thematic analysis within their respective mandates. Their input assists the Committee in evaluating complex policy areas, including child labour, health systems, education, and humanitarian response. This multi-actor model strengthens the evidentiary basis of monitoring and promotes coherence across international child-related initiatives (Freeman, 2018).

NGO participation enhances accountability by increasing transparency and pluralism within the monitoring process. It reduces the risk of self-reporting bias, amplifies marginalised voices, and sustains pressure for reform between reporting cycles. Civil society engagement also facilitates domestic follow-up by translating international recommendations into advocacy strategies and public debate. Through this interaction, the Convention’s monitoring system functions not merely as an international review mechanism, but as a catalyst for internal accountability and continuous legal development.

8. Optional Protocols to the Convention

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is supplemented by three Optional Protocols that deepen protection in areas where the original treaty was considered insufficiently specific or where evolving international practice demanded stronger legal standards. These instruments are legally binding for states that ratify them and form an integral part of the contemporary children’s rights framework. Each Optional Protocol addresses a distinct category of heightened vulnerability and expands both substantive obligations and accountability mechanisms.

8.1 Children in armed conflict

The Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict was adopted in 2000 in response to persistent concerns about the recruitment and use of children in hostilities. While the Convention itself prohibits the direct participation of children under fifteen in armed conflict, the Optional Protocol strengthens this protection by raising standards and narrowing permissible state practice. It requires states parties to take all feasible measures to ensure that members of their armed forces under the age of eighteen do not take a direct part in hostilities and prohibits compulsory recruitment below that age (Doek, 2014).

The Protocol also imposes obligations on states to prevent non-state armed groups from recruiting or using children under eighteen in hostilities under any circumstances. This provision reflects the reality that many contemporary conflicts involve non-state actors and internal armed violence. States must adopt legal, administrative, and preventive measures to criminalise such conduct and to address recruitment risks through education, demobilisation, and reintegration programmes (Alston and Tobin, 2019).

The legal consequences of the Protocol extend beyond battlefield conduct. States are required to provide assistance for the physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of children affected by armed conflict. This obligation links protection during hostilities with long-term recovery and reinforces the understanding that the harm caused by child soldiering persists well after the cessation of violence. The Protocol has influenced domestic criminal law, military recruitment policies, and international accountability efforts, even though enforcement remains challenging in conflict-affected regions (Freeman, 2018).

8.2 Sale of children, child prostitution, and child pornography

The Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution, and child pornography, also adopted in 2000, addresses forms of exploitation that require coordinated criminal justice responses. It obliges states to criminalise specific acts related to the sale of children, sexual exploitation, and the production, distribution, and possession of child sexual abuse material. These obligations apply regardless of whether offences occur domestically or transnationally, reflecting the global nature of such crimes (Cantwell, 2017).

Beyond criminalisation, the Protocol requires states to establish jurisdiction over offences committed within their territory or by their nationals and to promote international cooperation in investigation, extradition, and mutual legal assistance. Victim protection is central to the Protocol’s framework. States must ensure that child victims receive appropriate assistance, including recovery, compensation, and access to justice, without being re-victimised through legal processes (Doek, 2014).

The Protocol has played a significant role in harmonising national criminal laws and strengthening cross-border cooperation. Its emphasis on prevention, public awareness, and training of professionals underscores that enforcement alone is insufficient to address exploitation rooted in poverty, inequality, and demand-driven markets. While implementation varies across jurisdictions, the Protocol has contributed to the recognition of sexual exploitation of children as a serious international crime requiring sustained legal and institutional responses (Freeman, 2018).

8.3 Individual communications procedure

The third Optional Protocol, adopted in 2011, establishes an individual communications procedure that allows children, or their representatives, to submit complaints to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child alleging violations of Convention rights. This mechanism marked an important development in children’s rights by recognising children as rights-holders capable of seeking international remedies when domestic avenues have been exhausted (Kilkelly, 2015).

The procedure is subject to strict admissibility requirements. Complaints must be submitted against a state that has ratified the Protocol, must concern alleged violations of rights protected by the Convention or its first two Optional Protocols, and must demonstrate that domestic remedies have been exhausted or are ineffective. The Committee’s views are not legally binding in the same manner as judicial decisions, but they carry significant interpretive and persuasive authority (Alston and Tobin, 2019).

In practice, the impact of the communications procedure has been mixed. The number of states parties remains limited, and access barriers such as legal representation, awareness, and procedural complexity constrain its use. Even so, the mechanism has symbolic and practical importance. It reinforces the principle that children are entitled to remedies, contributes to the development of international jurisprudence on children’s rights, and exerts pressure on states to strengthen domestic complaint mechanisms. The Protocol thus complements the reporting system by introducing an avenue for individual accountability, even within the structural limits of international human rights enforcement.

9. Legal Effects in Practice: Concrete Applications

The legal relevance of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is most clearly demonstrated through its influence on domestic courts, legislation, and public administration. Even in legal systems where the Convention has not been formally incorporated into domestic law, it frequently operates as an interpretive guide, a normative benchmark, and a source of persuasive authority. Its practical effects illustrate how international human rights treaties shape outcomes beyond their formal legal status.

9.1 Domestic courts and legislation

Domestic courts increasingly rely on the Convention when interpreting constitutional provisions, statutes, and administrative regulations that affect children. Where constitutional texts refer broadly to dignity, equality, or family life, courts often use the Convention to clarify how those concepts apply specifically to children. This interpretive use reflects the principle that domestic law should, as far as possible, be read consistently with international obligations assumed by the state (Kilkelly, 2015).

In statutory interpretation, the Convention assists courts in resolving ambiguity and filling normative gaps. Provisions relating to custody, adoption, juvenile justice, education, and migration frequently raise questions about the weight to be given to children’s interests or participation. By drawing on Convention principles such as the best interests of the child and respect for the child’s views, courts are able to ground their reasoning in internationally recognised standards rather than subjective assessments of welfare or morality (Freeman, 2018).

Legislative processes are also influenced by the Convention’s normative framework. Lawmakers regularly refer to its provisions when drafting or amending child-related legislation, particularly in areas involving child protection, youth justice, and education. Parliamentary debates and explanatory memoranda often invoke Convention standards to justify reforms, demonstrating how the treaty operates as a reference point for assessing legal adequacy even where it does not have direct effect (Alston and Tobin, 2019).

9.2 Policy-making and public administration

Beyond courts and legislatures, the Convention has reshaped public administration by introducing children’s rights as a relevant consideration in policy design and implementation. One practical tool increasingly associated with this approach is the child impact assessment. These assessments aim to evaluate how proposed laws, policies, or budgetary decisions affect children’s rights and well-being, both directly and indirectly (Lundy and Byrne, 2017).

In social policy, child impact assessments encourage decision-makers to move beyond aggregate outcomes and consider differentiated effects on various groups of children. Policies related to housing, social security, health care, or migration may not be directed at children as their primary beneficiaries, yet they can significantly influence children’s living conditions and development. Applying Convention standards helps ensure that such effects are identified early and addressed through mitigation or redesign.

Administrative authorities also use the Convention to structure discretionary decision-making. Child protection agencies, education authorities, and immigration officials are increasingly required to justify decisions by reference to children’s rights rather than solely to institutional convenience or efficiency. This rights-based orientation promotes transparency and consistency, while reducing the risk of arbitrary or discriminatory outcomes (Doek, 2014).

9.3 Example of application

Family reunification decisions provide a clear illustration of how the Convention operates in practice. When children are separated from parents due to migration, detention, or asylum procedures, authorities must assess applications for reunification in light of the best interests of the child. This assessment requires consideration of the child’s age, emotional ties, dependency, cultural background, and expressed views, rather than treating reunification as a discretionary benefit or an exception to migration control (Cantwell, 2017).

Even in legal systems where the Convention has not been formally incorporated, its standards influence outcomes by shaping the reasoning process. Decision-makers may refer to the Convention to justify granting reunification where the strict application of immigration rules would result in prolonged separation or psychological harm to the child. Courts reviewing such decisions often examine whether authorities have meaningfully engaged with the child’s interests and provided reasons that demonstrate compliance with international standards (Kilkelly, 2015).

This example highlights a broader pattern: the Convention on the Rights of the Child affects legal outcomes not only through direct enforceability, but through its capacity to inform interpretation, guide discretion, and frame accountability. Its practical impact lies in altering how problems involving children are defined and resolved, embedding children’s rights within everyday legal and administrative practice, even in the absence of explicit incorporation.

10. Contemporary Relevance and Ongoing Challenges

10.1 Near-universality and remaining gaps

The Convention on the Rights of the Child occupies a unique position in international law due to its near-universal ratification. This level of acceptance carries substantial political and legal significance. It signals a broad consensus that children’s rights merit binding international protection and that states accept responsibility for safeguarding those rights within their jurisdictions. The Convention has therefore become a shared normative reference point across different legal systems, cultures, and political traditions, strengthening its authority as a global standard (Alston and Tobin, 2019).

At the same time, near-universality does not equate to uniform commitment or implementation. Formal ratification may coexist with reservations, interpretive declarations, or limited domestic effect. In some states, children’s rights remain marginal within constitutional frameworks or are subordinated to competing political priorities. The existence of limited exceptions to ratification underscores that acceptance of the Convention is not entirely uncontested, and it highlights ongoing debates about sovereignty, parental authority, and the role of international norms in domestic affairs (Freeman, 2018).

These gaps reveal an important structural reality: the Convention’s strength lies in its normative reach, but its effectiveness depends on how states internalise and operationalise its standards. Universal acceptance creates expectations of compliance and facilitates peer pressure, yet it does not eliminate disparities in political will, institutional capacity, or social conditions affecting children.

10.2 Persistent implementation challenges

Despite decades of normative development, implementation challenges remain widespread and, in some areas, increasingly complex. Inequality continues to undermine children’s rights both within and between states. Children living in poverty, informal settlements, or marginalised communities face systematic barriers to education, health care, and social protection. These inequalities often intersect with discrimination based on ethnicity, disability, gender, or migration status, intensifying rights violations even where legal frameworks appear robust (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2021).

Armed conflict remains one of the most severe threats to children’s rights. Contemporary conflicts expose children to displacement, recruitment, injury, and disruption of education and health services. Even outside active hostilities, post-conflict environments frequently lack the institutional capacity needed to ensure recovery and reintegration. The persistence of such conditions demonstrates the limits of legal prohibition when enforcement mechanisms are weak or political incentives favour militarisation (Doek, 2014).

Migration presents another area of sustained tension. Children affected by cross-border movement encounter detention, family separation, precarious legal status, and restricted access to services. Policies designed primarily around border control often fail to integrate children’s rights considerations in a meaningful way. The Convention requires states to address these situations through child-sensitive procedures, yet implementation remains uneven and contested (Cantwell, 2017).

Digital risks have emerged as a comparatively new challenge. Online environments expose children to privacy violations, exploitation, harmful content, and data misuse. While the Convention predates the digital age, its provisions on privacy, protection, and participation provide a relevant legal framework. Translating these principles into effective regulation of digital platforms and technologies remains an evolving task that tests the adaptability of existing legal concepts (Livingstone and Third, 2017).

10.3 The Convention’s role in current global debates

The Convention continues to shape contemporary debates by offering a stable legal framework through which new challenges can be assessed. Child participation has gained increased prominence, with growing recognition that children should contribute to decisions on issues ranging from education policy to urban planning. The Convention’s emphasis on listening to children provides legal grounding for participatory practices that move beyond symbolic consultation and toward meaningful influence (Lundy, 2007).

Climate change has emerged as a defining issue for children’s rights, even though it is not explicitly addressed in the Convention. Environmental degradation affects children’s health, development, and future prospects, raising questions about intergenerational justice and state responsibility. Convention principles related to survival, development, and best interests are increasingly invoked to frame climate-related obligations toward children, demonstrating the treaty’s capacity to inform responses to novel global threats (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2021).

Socio-economic crises, including those linked to global pandemics and economic instability, further test the Convention’s relevance. Austerity measures and emergency policies often have disproportionate effects on children, particularly in areas such as education, mental health, and social protection. The Convention provides criteria for assessing whether crisis responses respect children’s rights and prioritise their well-being in times of constraint (Freeman, 2018).

These dynamics explain why the Convention on the Rights of the Child remains a living instrument rather than a static historical text. Its principles continue to guide interpretation, adaptation, and critique in response to changing social realities. The Convention’s enduring relevance lies not in predicting every future challenge, but in providing a coherent rights-based framework capable of evolving through interpretation and practice while remaining anchored in the dignity and agency of the child.

Conclusion

The Convention on the Rights of the Child represents a decisive transformation in the legal status of children within international law. It established children as autonomous rights-holders and articulated a comprehensive framework that integrates civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights into a single binding instrument. By combining substantive guarantees with general principles and implementation mechanisms, the Convention moved beyond moral aspiration and welfare-oriented protection toward a structured legal regime grounded in dignity, equality, and accountability. Its influence on domestic law, judicial reasoning, and administrative practice demonstrates that it functions not merely as a symbolic treaty, but as an operative source of legal standards guiding state conduct (Alston and Tobin, 2019).

One of the Convention’s principal strengths lies in its holistic design. The absence of a hierarchy among rights, the emphasis on the best interests of the child, and the recognition of children’s evolving capacities allow the treaty to accommodate diversity in legal systems while maintaining normative coherence. The reporting system and the interpretive work of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child have further strengthened the Convention’s authority by clarifying obligations and adapting standards to new contexts. The Optional Protocols reinforce this framework by addressing areas of acute vulnerability and by expanding avenues for accountability, even within the structural limits of international enforcement (Doek, 2014).

At the same time, the Convention’s effectiveness depends on sustained political commitment and institutional capacity. Persistent gaps between formal acceptance and practical implementation reveal the limits of legal obligation in the absence of resources, coordination, and enforcement. Inequality, armed conflict, migration pressures, and technological change continue to expose children to rights violations that test the reach of existing mechanisms. These challenges do not diminish the Convention’s value; they underscore the need for its principles to be applied rigorously and creatively across legal and policy domains (Freeman, 2018).

The continuing relevance of the Convention on the Rights of the Child lies in its capacity to frame emerging issues within a stable rights-based structure. It offers lawmakers, courts, administrators, and advocates a common language for evaluating decisions that affect children, even in areas not expressly anticipated by its drafters. By anchoring contemporary debates in legally defined standards rather than discretionary judgments, the Convention remains a central reference point for protecting children’s rights in changing social, economic, and political conditions. Its legacy is not confined to the moment of its adoption; it endures through ongoing interpretation, implementation, and engagement in law, policy, and practice.

References

1. Alston, P. and Tobin, J. (2019) Laying the foundations for children’s rights: An independent study of some key legal and institutional aspects of the impact of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti.

2. Cantwell, N. (2014) The best interests of the child in intercountry adoption. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti.

3. Cantwell, N. (2017) ‘The monitoring of the Convention on the Rights of the Child’, in Liefaard, T. and Sloth-Nielsen, J. (eds.) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Taking stock after 25 years and looking ahead. Leiden: Brill, pp. 23–45.

4. Doek, J.E. (2014) ‘The CRC at 25: Are children better off?’, International Journal of Children’s Rights, 22(4), pp. 679–695.

5. Freeman, M. (2018) Children’s rights: A commentary on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.

6. Kilkelly, U. (2015) The best interests of the child: A guide to Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

7. Lansdown, G. (2005) The evolving capacities of the child. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

8. Livingstone, S. and Third, A. (2017) ‘Children and young people’s rights in the digital age: An emerging agenda’, New Media & Society, 19(5), pp. 657–670.

9. Lundy, L. (2007) ‘“Voice” is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’, British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), pp. 927–942.

10. Lundy, L. and Byrne, B. (2017) ‘The four general principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: The potential value of the approach in other areas of human rights law’, in Liefaard, T. and Sloth-Nielsen, J. (eds.) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Taking stock after 25 years and looking ahead. Leiden: Brill, pp. 52–70.

11. Skogly, S.I. (2012) The human rights obligations of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. London: Cavendish Publishing.

12. Smolin, D.M. (2013) ‘Intercountry adoption and human rights: Law, ethics, and practice’, Capital University Law Review, 41(3), pp. 691–738.

13. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2021) General Comment No. 25 (2021) on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment. Geneva: United Nations.

14. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2021) General Comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration. Geneva: United Nations.

15. Veerman, P.E. (1992) The rights of the child and the changing image of childhood. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.

16. Zermatten, J. (2010) ‘The best interests of the child principle: Literal analysis and function’, International Journal of Children’s Rights, 18(4), pp. 483–499.

17. United Nations (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United Nations.

18. United Nations (2000) Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict. New York: United Nations.

19. United Nations (2000) Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. New York: United Nations.

20. United Nations (2011) Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure. New York: United Nations.