| Sovereignty and federalism | The USA is consistent in its opposition to international treaties that are perceived to potentially exert control over domestic policies, and/or its international liabilities, for example, failure to join the International Criminal Court. The USA is grounded on the principles of federalism that grant substantial authority to states—that may be challenged by a treaty that extends social, economic, political and cultural rights to children. Ratification requires a two-thirds majority vote of the Senate that is nearly impossible to achieve in a hyperpartisan political environment.
|
| Legal | Though no longer an issue in the USA since the Supreme Court rulings against the death penalty and mandatory life in prison for minors, prohibitions against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment addressed in Article 37 would still have legal ramifications in the USA. Other articles, including those dealing with discrimination (Article 2), separation from parents (Articles 9 and 10), treatment of refugee children (Article 22) and juvenile justice (Article 40), would also have potential implications for US laws and its courts.
|
| Political | The USA has failed to extend political rights to children, in particular those related to youth participation (Article 12), which is a core principle of child rights and the CRC. In addition to Article 12, other related ‘political’ rights include those related to freedom of expression, thought and privacy (Articles 13, 14, 16). The USA and states are also hesitant to extend social and economic rights to children, including the rights to health (Article 24), social security (Article 26) and standards of living (Article 27).
|
| Parental rights | Despite the focus of the CRC on the primary importance of families and the critical role played by parents in fulfilling the rights of their children, there remain political and culturally based perceptions that if you extend rights to children, you deny the rights of parents. Despite the requirement that ‘States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents….’ articulated in Article 5, doing so ‘in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child…’ is seen as incompatible with parental rights. Parental rights groups ignore other articles that define the primary role of parents in the lives of their children, and the responsibility of the State to support parents to ensure they have the capacity to fulfil those roles, as articulated in Articles 9, 18 and 27.
|