Talk:Convention on the Rights of the Child

message: I saw a copyright violation.
Wikipedia: Only Somalia and the United States have not ratified the CRC. Somalia is currently unable to proceed to ratification as it has no recognized government.
The United States, by signing the Convention, has signaled its intention to ratify – but has yet to do so. The United States undertakes an extensive examination and scrutiny of treaties before proceeding to ratify. This examination, which includes an evaluation of the degree of compatibility with existing law and practice in the country at state and federal levels, can take several years – or even longer if the treaty is portrayed as being controversial or if the process is politicized. In particular, the practice in several U.S. states of executing persons between the ages of 16 and 18 is a major barrier to the USA's ratification of the Convention. However, a 2005 Supreme Court decision made this illegal.
UNICEF Site: "Only two countries, Somalia and the United States, have not ratified this celebrated agreement. Somalia is currently unable to proceed to ratification as it has no recognized government. By signing the Convention, the United States has signalled its intention to ratify – but has yet to do so. 
As in many other nations, the United States undertakes an extensive examination and scrutiny of treaties before proceeding to ratify. This examination, which includes an evaluation of the degree of compliance with existing law and practice in the country at state and federal levels, can take several years – or even longer if the treaty is portrayed as being controversial or if the process is politicized. For example, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide took more than 30 years to be ratified in the United States and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which was signed by the United States 17 years ago, still has not been ratified. Moreover, the US Government typically will consider only one human rights treaty at a time. Currently, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is cited as the nation's top priority among human rights treaties. "
There are some differences, but almost all of the passage is the same on both.—Preceding unsigned comment added by  4.15.113.234 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 March 2005
* Facts can't be copyrighted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.48.68 (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2006 
* But the way they are phrased can.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsotrain09 (talk • contribs)  03:02, 8 April 2006 
* _ _ The verbatim uses of the following phrasings:
:: Only Somalia and the United States have not ratified...
:: Somalia is currently unable to proceed to ratification as it has no recognized government.
::The United States undertakes an extensive examination and scrutiny of treaties before proceeding to ratify. This examination, which includes an evaluation of the degree of compatibility with existing law and practice in the country at state and federal levels, can take several years – or even longer if the treaty is portrayed as being controversial or if the process is politicized.
: are violations. (Well, unless we can establish that the author, or the entity for whom they wrote it as a work for hire, executed the GFDL or placed it in the public domain. But even finding a statement at the source to that effect would suffice to do more than make it likely, since anyone can copy it from an earlier source and lie about that.)
: _ _ I'm tagging and removing them.--Jerzy•t 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Violation 

message: Dropped this about the Roper decision and the US ratification:
:However, recent changes in the court, including the new Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, and the vacancy created by the departure of[ asscoiate justice Sandra Day O'Connor, both of whom are appointed by president George Bush, a pro-death penalty conservative, indicate that this decision may likely be overturned in the near future.
This makes no sense. The Roper decision was 5-4. Both Rehnquist and O'Connor were on the dissenting side. Even assuming that the two new justices take the same position as the their predecessors, the votes are not there to overturn Roper. Ellsworth 21:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Supreme Court and the Convention 

message: The items in this list are very inconsitent in their use of second vs. third person i.e. "They" and "Children" vs. "You". I believe third person would be more appropriate, but second person is used in the external link that it is based on. The main thing is it needs to be consistent. socalifornia 18:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consistency within the article is indeed mandatory. But the main thing is that 2nd person is unencyclopedic, and every edit that adds to consistency within the article by introducing more 2nd person is a bad edit. NPoV implies that the purpose of an article is to communicate facts, and choosing language features whose purpose is to prepare the reader to apply it to their personal situation is implicitly taking the position that their doing so is good, besides interferes with the factual communication (starting with the fact that what is said applies to the rest of the world as well as the reader).--Jerzy•t 21:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key Issues Inconsistencies 

message: just thought i'd mention--broken link at the bottom of the page.Nothingisreal 23:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: I'm concerned that the key issues section may be too listy for inclusion - the article iself is not a list. Therefore I'm removing the section to talk.  ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 01:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: think I'm in favour of putting the list back in some form, basically I came here looking to find anything further on article 31 - nothing about any of the articles is currently in the 'article'
I was going to try to hyperlink to the relevant articles - are the terms above defined or not (rest doesn't seem to have a wikipedia definition distinct from leisure, if leisure, play and recreation are distinct)?
would it be Original research to link to rest?
That bit is probably of interest to various wikiprojects on art or similar, I was wondering if some countries had/had not ratified that. I guess it's an 'all or nothing' apart from the extra clauses mentioned at the end of the article, (child soldiers etc).
Anyway not having the content in the article so you can't quickly find out what all the countries have agreed to makes the article less useful than I might have hoped.
EdwardLane (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key issues section - too listy? 

message: Article says "However, the United States Constitution requires that treaties receive the approval of two-thirds of the Senate". That's a very confusing statement, if you read what Treaty#United_States_law and Foreign_policy_law_of_the_United_States. In short: "treaty" under US constitutional law means something different than what it does under international law. So, although this is a treaty under international law, the US President could have chosen (and maybe even still could choose) to not treat it as a treaty under US constitutional law, and thus ratify it by a different method than the 2/3-rd Senate majority method (the congressional-executive method or the sole executive method.) This is a very murky legal area, but I would venture that a simple answer is that the article doesn't need to comment on this; it can just say "President Clinton chose to submit the treaty to Senate for ratification by a two-thirds majority", which is entirely true, and avoids the issue of whether he could have ratified it another way. --SJK 08:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're confused - there is no "other way" to ratify a treaty.  To be sure, the President can issue orders and Congress can make laws consistent with the treaty, but that doesn't even reach the level of a de-facto ratification, since neither federal orders or federal laws have the authority to override the individual states in many (if not all) of the areas covered by the treaty.  --Tim4christ17 talk 15:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition, Clinton never submitted it to the Senate, so that is not factually accurate. He only signed it, in 1995.  If the US ever became party, advice and consent of the Senate would be required. I don't think there is any plausible argument that the CRC could be treated as anything other than a "treaty" under U.S. law. Further, all other human rights treaties to which the US is a party (eg ICCPR, CERD, CRC Optional Protocols) have had advice and consent of the Senate prior to ratification by the President.Kbaumert 18:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Senate ratification 

message: The United Nations General Assembly agreed to adopt the Convention into international law as an advisory resolution on 1989-11-20. The United Nations Charter does not permit the General Assembly to create international law. All GA resolutions are advisory only. I retained "adopt the Convention into international law" anyway, because the treaty is international law for the signatories. The prior language erroneously suggested that the GA can pass laws. Raggz (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Convention and international law as an advisory resolution

message: There is a need to expand the citations. Only a few sources are used. I suggest that we do more research, so that new cites may replace or augment the few now used? Raggz (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Sweetmoose. Raggz (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Michael is his father, an environmental and process engineer.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding the citation base

message: Michael Smolin is an authority worth citing, but his opinions are in most sections, and he is cited about ten times. I propose that his opinions be limited to one section. Raggz (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Smolin cites

message: The Heritage Foundation is likewise represented more than is ideal. Unlike with Smolin, these are clustered together within a single section. I propose that additional sources be added, and that the opinions of the Heritage Foundation and Michael Smolin be limited to a single section. Raggz (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Heritage Foundation

message: World Vision's homepage search did not reveal any support for CDAW. I did not delete this text, but instead left a fact tag. Raggz (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: World Vision

message: Citations are to David Smolin.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Sweetmoose. Raggz (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Michael is his father, an environmental and process engineer.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Small correction

message: There is a lack of citations in this first paragraph from the controversy section.  Some of this stuff, particularly the last sentence, is rather controversial.  To state for a fact that the U.S. would be embarrassed is quite a statement.  This must be cited or removed.  I will remove the last sentence of this paragraph (at least) if it is not sourced soon.
:Ratification of the UNCRC by the United States would require the U.S. governments to appear before the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, a panel of child rights experts from around the world, every 5 years to explain their implementation of such issues as universal health insurance for all American children, currently a human right in all other western industrialized nations. As of 2008, 25% of children in the U.S. don't have health insurance. Child poverty rates in America, the highest in the western industrialized nations, would have to be explained as well. Public examination of U.S. policies and direct comparison with those of other countries like the UK, France, Germany, Australia and Canada would prove embarassing internationally.
JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to remove the final two sentences from that paragraph.  If somebody can adequately source theme, they can be re-added.  JBFrenchhorn (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Citations 

message: :Mcintyre, A. (2005). Invisible stakeholders: children and war in Africa. Pretoria: Lesedi Litho Printers. Cited in Abatneh, 2006
The 2006 dissertation linked above says that East Timor ("Timor Leste") is yet to ratify the Convention. Is this still true? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratified by [[East Timor]]? 

message: It seems to me that "Doubtful legal case of 47,800 VND" is an irrelevant link and I'm curious as to why that article even exists (and why it is being "promoted" here).  --Darkpoet (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: The text as shown at Wikisource is different from . The Wikisource version  contains some strange things such as "The present Convention shall be open for signature by all States except Perth and W.A. in Guadeloupe." - what does this "except Perth and W.A. in Guadeloupe." mean? It is also missing from the other source. Alinor (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikisource errors 

message: Why is there no full list of participants? 80.98.146.68 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It says every member of the United Nations except Somalia and the United States. Is that not good enough? Stuartyeates (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It says including. Which means that there can be other countries. I thought this is a statement about the UN, not the Convention itself. What about the non-UN countries? How many of them signed it? 80.98.146.68 (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Name one. Then add it, e.g. every member of the United Nations except Somalia and the United States, plus Ruritania. rewinn (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of participants 

message: I deleted the reference to the extreme-right-wing National Observer's criticism of Australia's signature of the CRC.  Not sure why this reference is at all useful to understanding even the consequences of Australia's signature.  If this criticism is to be retained, there needs to be, at the very least, a discussion of the way the CRC signature has played out in High Court cases such as Teoh (1995), and in State and Commonwealth legislation which has progressively incorporated the "best interests of the child" test since the 1990s.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.142.242.137 (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia's signature 

message: Surely the stated date when Australia joined the Convention, 1950, is incorrect?
hilojo  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilojo (talk • contribs) 00:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: The UN just officially announced that Somalia has become the 195th state party to ratify the Convention. All that remains now is for the Somalian government to deposit the instruments of ratification at the United Nations headquarters in New York . Middayexpress (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the UNESCO, a UN agency, but not the depositary "DG of the UN". Let's keep it in until the weekend. If they haven't followed up by then, then I suggest we wait for the depository to take the formal action... L.tak (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it'll probably take at least a few days for the government to make the deposit. The official state parties will then read 195. Middayexpress (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

text: The UN main service likewise just announced that there are now officially 195 nations party to the treaty . Middayexpress (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That is consistent with my view of the matter "The ratification process will be finalized once the Government of Somalia deposits the instruments of ratification at UN Headquarters in New York.". I hope they manage in the next 2 days; and in view of the attention they just might... L.tak (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob. Middayexpress (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It was too early indeed it seems. The instrument of ratification has as of today not yet been deposited (could be days.... could be months until they do so). Let's hope the hurry a bit! Until then I have restored the formal (194 parties) situation. L.tak (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw one once (not for this treaty but another UN treaty) where the deposit date was about two years after the legal ratification at home. I guess sometimes papers go missing ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Well, it is a bit confusing indeed. They say they ratified, but then in the first link provided it is said that the "ratification process will be completed with the deposit of the instrument". The latter is what we are eagerly waiting for, and which according to the depositary site (https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en) has not yet happened. So the term ratification is used in many forms, but you can not have a ratification, while at the same time saying that it still needs to be completed... Let me also add, that in the convention it is said that instruments need to be deposited with the depositary (hence its name). So that is the source. They did therefore all deposit or they wouldn't be registered... If you go to https://treaties.un.org/, then click "depositary notifications", then click "search CNs", and then select treaty "IV-11" and data rage 01-01-1989 - 30-01-2015, you'll see all notifications.  L.tak (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks; let's leave it at that then and hope Somalia will become a party to the treaty soon! There is indeed no deadline; but at the same time there is also no guarantee that Somalia will follow through and eventually become a party to the treaty, so we shouldn't suggest the deposit is imminent... L.tak (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: 195 States Party

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Convention on the Rights of the Child. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211151110/https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211151110/https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304080857/http://labour.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/Divisions/childlabour/Census-2001&2011.pdf to http://labour.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/Divisions/childlabour/Census-2001%262011.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825214748/http://treaties.un.org:80/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11-d&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11-d&chapter=4&lang=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211151110/https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Convention on the Rights of the Child. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://labour.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/Divisions/childlabour/Census-2001%262011.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eu2009.cz/cz/news-and-documents/cfsp-statements/%2Akopie-1%3A-eu-presidency-statement-on-the-execution-of-delara-darabi-by-stoning--19876/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://iranwpd.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3066%3Airan-changes-law-for-execution-of-juveniles&Itemid=64
*Added  tag to http://www.law.emory.edu/cms/site/fileadmin/journals/eilr/v20n1/SmolinCROP.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211012036/http://debate.waldenu.edu/video/question-12/ to http://debate.waldenu.edu/video/question-12/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11-d&chapter=4&lang=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Convention on the Rights of the Child. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222202845/http://www.amnestyusa.org/children/crn_faq.html to http://www.amnestyusa.org/children/crn_faq.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211151110/https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en to https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211151110/https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en to https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211151110/https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en to https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Supreme Court ruling only applied to mandatory life without parole for juveniles, but still allowed for JLWOP in some instances. http://www.cumberlandtrialjournal.com/life-after-miller-retroactive-sentencing-and-the-rare-juvenile/
On the flipside, the Convention bans JLWOP entirely. The US is still in contravention of the Convention.Bjoh249 (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Should the Miller vs Alabama ruling on juvenile life imprisonment be mentioned like it is?

message: This cant be right now: The UK Government responded that "the use of physical punishment is a matter for individual parents to decide".  May be right in 1992, but not now. Any sort of physical punishment of children is the uk is now illegal, except for reasonable punishment. It Scotland it is completely illegal now to hit a child.  Wales seems to be going to same. scope_creep (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: United Kingdom

message: I dispute that Canada has ratified this treaty. Despite the comments of a random ministry, the judiciary maintains supremacy over the executive in Canada through judicial review, and the judiciary recognizes the legislative branch as the only branch of government that can make the Convention law. Read Baker at paragraph 69 (not a joke). Just do ctrl + f "69" to see the relevant paragraph.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii699/1999canlii699.html Mevvy00 (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Alarics read the paragraph that I'm citing from Baker. The highest legal authority in Canada explicitly states that it only interprets as law what has been passed by parliament. 2/3 branches of government say the treaty is not ratified, while (at max (because the source this article relies on for Canada's ratification of this treaty is a random ministry, not even the whole of the executive))  only 1/3 says it is ratified. Mevvy00 (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada & Baker