Lack of the United States’s Ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

During a thunderstorm in Manhattan on the morning of the twentieth of November 1989, members of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) congregated at the UN Headquarters to formally adopt the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This treaty signing marked the thirtieth anniversary of the institution of the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which was not legally binding even though it served as a foundational document. The 1989 Convention, however, reinforced and formalized children’s rights as legally binding under international law.  Such rights include, but are not limited to, the right to life, development, growth, and survival; the right to an education; the right to protection from abuse, neglect, and violence; the right to be raised by their parents and live in a family unit; and the right to express their viewpoints and be heard.

The concept of children’s rights have been debated since the nineteenth century when increased awareness of global poverty, dangerous working conditions, and health discrepancies led to the consensus that children’s rights needed legal consolidation. It was not until the wake of the Great War, however, that action was formally taken. Eglantyne Jebb, who founded Save The Children at the end of the war, drafted what would become the Geneva Declaration – the 1924 Declaration of the Rights of the Child – adopted by the League of Nations the same year. It signified five specific rights for children, but it remained severely limited within the scope of these guaranteed rights. The Second World War yielded casualties and governmental infringement impacting many children, ultimately resulting in the expansion of the Geneva Declaration into the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, enumerating ten specific rights for children. This declaration served as the blueprint for what would ultimately become the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) that the UNGA would adopt thirty years later on that chilly, rainy day in Manhattan.

To understand the rights prescribed by the UNCRC and the reasoning for these prescriptions, one must identify what a child is. The Convention defines “child” as anyone under the age of eighteen, “unless the relevant laws recognize an earlier age of majority.” Not all entities define children in the same manner. Oxford English Dictionary describes a child as an unborn or newly born human being or a young person of either sex below the age of puberty. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development refers to puberty as the time in life when an individual becomes sexually mature (between the ages of eight and thirteen for girls, and ages nine and fourteen for boys).

The three contrasting definitions of “child” provided above demonstrate the inability to characterize one group of individuals – and an inability to broaden the scope to include three different characterizations of children into one generalized classification. Because the traits of children are not clear and distinct, there is no clear and distinct framework that guarantees the protection of children and their rights. There is no collective agreement on what exactly entails children’s rights. Vanessa Bramwell states that different institutional bodies of the UN tasked with protecting the interests of children in armed conflict tend to “subscribe to particular ideas about children and their characteristics.” This explains the constant revision and rewriting of declarations and conventions pertaining to children’s rights.

Defining “child” is essential in determining the basic requirements and necessities for rearing children and contributing to their upbringing. Children cannot fully function without the help and guidance of adults. Without guaranteed rights, Dr. Aline Cole-Albäck writes, children become more vulnerable to exploitation by adults who may not have their best interests at heart. The UNCRC establishes a minimum standard holding adults accountable should they breach their legally binding rights. It is the responsibility of adults to recognize and reinforce children’s rights. Children are not extensions of adults – they are individuals who deserve rights of their own. 

As of February 2025, the Convention on the Rights of the Child boasts one-hundred ninety-six State Parties, making it the most widely ratified human rights treaty to date. Every member of the United Nations is a party to the UNCRC, except for the United States. It is notable that the United States participated in drafting and signing the treaty, but it has yet to ratify it following Somalia’s ratification in 2015. Its lack of ratification is alarming because of the influence it exercises and the assistance it provides in (transnational) treaty work and the commitment it has expressed in reinforcing human rights, which is particularly poignant amidst the current turbulent international order. Without Senate ratification, these promises lose their weight, revealing a legal hypocrisy that casts doubt on the nation’s commitment to human rights.  Why, then, does the United States remain the only member of the United Nations to have not ratified the UNCRC? 

Fragility of Abortion Rights

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child implies that childhood commences before birth, listing the needs of a child, including appropriate legal protection as a form of special safeguard and care, before and after birth. Protection of the unborn could require state parties to outlaw abortion altogether if abortion breaches that special safeguard and care that (unborn) children are entitled to. Pinpointing the beginning of childhood – and, ultimately, the beginning of life – was contested among those who drafted and signed the treaty on that rainy day in 1989 because of the disparities in policies each member state established to compromise on abortion rights for their respective citizens. As a result of the disputes, the official definition of a child provided in the UNCRC does not provide a minimum age limit, leaving each State Party of the treaty to determine when life begins. Their determinations of this beginning allow for them to fulfill Article 6 of the UNCRC, which recognizes every child’s inherent right to life and promises the maximum extent possible for the survival and development of the child.

The Center for Reproductive Rights reports that as of 2024, more than sixty countries and territories have legalized abortion and expounded on abortion policies. The legal and political sphere continues to witness a growing trend toward the liberalization of abortion laws in nation-states that happen to be State Parties of the UNCRC. The ambiguity over the beginning of childhood (and life) should not serve as a catalyst preventing the United States from ratifying the UNCRC, especially more so because issues have not erupted in the State Parties that have legalized abortion. Some State Parties, including France, China, Luxembourg, and Tunisia, have provided reservations to the Convention affirming that Article 6 should not interfere with national legalization of abortion. The United States, then, should not be concerned about this ambiguity, especially after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, removing federal legalization of abortion. 

Yet even after the overturn of Roe v. Wade, the United States has not moved toward ratifying the UNCRC. has neither urged nor encouraged the United States to ratify the UNCRC. Each state determines the legality of abortion, meaning that while some states have executed complete bans on abortion, not all of them have. States that have not outlawed abortion instead implemented restrictions according to gestational limits. Restrictions based on gestational limits raise the question of when life begins, which in turn complicates the enforcement of guaranteed rights for both born and unborn children. Article 6 guarantees children’s right to growth and development, but without consensus on when life begins, enforcing this right remains challenging.

Lack of National Paid Maternity Leave

The UNCRC guarantees special safeguards and care for children after birth. Such special safeguards and care, however, cannot be guaranteed for infants in the United States. Claire Cain Miller reports that the U.S. is one of six countries – and the only “rich country” – in the world not to have implemented a national paid maternity leave. The lack of a national paid maternity leave infringes on mothers’ rights, which, in turn, infringes on children’s rights, as children may not be granted proper growth and development. Studies conducted by researchers on mothers in America have demonstrated adverse effects on mothers and children who were permitted a shorter maternity leave compared to mothers and children permitted a longer maternity leave.

The International Labor Organization of the United Nations believes maternity protection to be a fundamental human right. This fundamental human right extends to children’s rights because maternity protection directly impacts the right to life and development under the UNCRC for children. Children perform better when they are gifted with more time for bonding and growth with their mothers directly after birth. Advocates of a national paid maternity leave in the United States highlight the value of breastfeeding and correlate breastfeeding with more positive outcomes for mothers and children. Four studies compiled by researchers in 2007 collectively disclosed the duration of breastfeeding to be higher in mothers on longer maternity leaves, leading to more benefits for the newborns, including lower rates of infections, childhood diabetes, eczema, asthma, and obesity. Protecting children from sickness and frailty contributes to their right to life and survival. The American Academy of Pediatrics emphasizes the importance of health protections, particularly through breastfeeding, to support children’s well-being.

Without a national paid maternity leave, one cannot expect the United States to readily ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Despite the Convention’s standard, paid maternity leave in the U.S. remains a state-level decision, leading to varied policies. A lack of consensus on how long maternity leave should be for and how effective it ought to be amongst all fifty states – like abortion restrictions – can prevent a federal implementation of a paid maternity leave universal throughout the States. 

Fear of Transgression on Parental Authority

The third fear that the U.S. Senate has expressed apprehension over pertains to the violation of parental authority and the nuclear family unit, should the States ratify the UNCRC. Lawmakers are concerned that the recognition of children’s rights, as well as the recognition of children as persons, necessitates a guaranteed authority inhabited by children. If this were to be permitted, parental authority runs the risk of disruption and upheaval. Provisions of a safe space for children to voice their opinions and be heard may be dangerous. 

Such fear is irrational, especially considering that the Convention emphasizes the necessity for parental responsibilities to be exercised in a manner that respects children’s rights and evolving capacities. The Convention’s establishment of parental roles guarantees and protects children’s rights in that the adults keep their children’s best interests at heart and provide them with the fundamental blocks essential to growth and maturity. Parents are responsible for fulfilling their roles, and State Parties of the UNCRC are responsible for providing parents with the necessities and support required for fulfilling the parental role as scripted.

There are several Articles in the Convention that directly address and underscore parental responsibility. Article 27, for example, affirms the primary responsibility of parents, within their abilities and financial capacities, to provide children with the right to an adequate standard of living that will satisfy the child’s physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, social, and moral development.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child seeks to protect parental authority and ensure that the family unit remains intact. One cannot help but question the heightened concern over threats to parental authority in the United States, when the lack of a national paid maternity leave does more to undermine the family unit and devalue parenthood itself.

Enlistment of Child Soldiers

Perhaps one of the most glaring reasons for the lack of ratification on the part of the United States is the enlisting of child soldiers. The Uniform Code of Military Justice, codified as federal law at 10 U.S.C., permits the recruitment of seventeen-year-old children. The UNCRC designates children to be individuals below the age of eighteen. The enlistment of seventeen-year-old individuals is therefore problematic because child soldiers are viewed differently from children. Children are categorized as civilians. The deaths of children during armed conflict have been considered civilian casualties since the onset of WWII because they could not fight on the frontlines. The 1974 Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict only reinforced the idea that civilians are civilians in armed conflict, and harm inflicted on children became a primary mechanism for classifying specific conflicts as brutal and horrifying. Bramwell corroborates that “[a]trocities against children made headlines” and were particularly effective in garnering donor sympathy. The classification nonetheless casts some doubt on the claim that children cannot fight on the frontlines, given that children – particularly boys – are often recruited into the military. The recruitment of (male) children soldiers reveals the stark gendered division of childhood, suggesting that boys may not be considered children in the same way as girls due to the societal roles associated with their identity – despite the Old-English definition of “child” originally referring to a male infant.

Education further facilitates the enlistment of child soldiers in the United States, as evidenced by the prevalence of military recruiters and militarizing structures in high schools throughout the nation. Scott Harding and Seth Kershner address the U.S. military’s unimpeded access to high school students, which simultaneously serves as a primary factor in recruitment and as an alarming violation of international human rights standards implemented to cease all recruitment of children into the military. Access to high schools also violates a child’s right to education, as schooling should not be used as a tool for military recruitment. Schools cannot, and must not, be used as sites for the production and recruitment of child soldiers through manipulative tactics. One should then not expect the United States to ratify the UNCRC when it is already violating some of the principles outlined in the Convention.

Conclusion

The United States must rectify its failure to ratify the  United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This can only be done after it addresses its domestic issues that serve as direct violations of the Convention. It would be wise to implement a national paid maternity leave and ban all presence and encouragement for enlistment with armed forces in schools and other places where a majority of the population is below the age of eighteen.

One understands the time it will take to execute the proposed changes. While these changes will take time to implement, the urgency of protecting children demands immediate action. Children need to be protected. After its assistance in drafting the treaty and its signature included, the United States has no legitimate reason to reject the Convention and not ratify it. Given the Trump administration’s skepticism of international organizations, ratification is unlikely. Still, continued refusal only undermines the country’s credibility in global human rights efforts. It is time to protect the children. The United States ought to be first and foremost in doing so – preferably no later than 2029 at the UN Headquarters on a chilly, rainy day to mark the fortieth anniversary of the formal adoption of the Convention.

Editors

Clara Apt, Managing Editor

Abby Ferraro, Copy Editor

Sara Radovic

Sara Radovic (she/her) is a second-year MA candidate in International Relations at NYU. She obtained her bachelor’s degree in English with a minor in art history from Rutgers University in 2022, where she also wrote for the Rutgers Undergraduate Law Review (RULR). Some of her articles for RULR include Importance of National Paid Maternity Leave, The Controversial Conversion of Hagia Sophia and Law Involvement in Enhancing Education for Students with Dyslexia. She currently helps clients file claims with the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. Her primary interests include international law, human rights law, and selective commemoration of victims, particularly in the Balkans. When not studying or working, you can find her enjoying an iced vanilla oat latte at Ralph’s Coffee or exploring art museums in New York City.