Libertarian arguements for (if any) and against Convention on the Rights of the Child

Economics Political Theory
1

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child and opened it for signature on 20 November 1989 (the 30th anniversary of its Declaration of the Rights of the Child).[2] It came into force on 2 September 1990, after it was ratified by the required number of nations. All member nation states (countries) of the United Nations, except the United States and Somalia,[3] have ratified it.

In particular interest to me is Article 28 putting education at the hands of the State:

Article 28

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:

(a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all;

(b) Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need;

(c) Make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means;

(d) Make educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children;

(e) Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates.

2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention.

3. States Parties shall promote and encourage international cooperation in matters relating to education, in particular with a view to contributing to the elimination of ignorance and illiteracy throughout the world and facilitating access to scientific and technical knowledge and modern teaching methods. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries.

What are the libertarians for (if any) and against this convention?

2

I would have to say that, given that the entire thing allows the initiation of force–the whole thing is to be thrown out.

3

I vote NAY

4

The main issue with putting the responsibility to guarantee HR into the hands of states is not specific to Article 28 or even the CRC as a whole. It is a general feature of the current international law system, which is still largely resting on inter-states mechanisms. Though this is (fortunately) slowly changing, precisely through the application of HR conventions; so, it’s actually a step in the good/libertarian direction, even though still far from being perfect -:wink:

5

I’m against the idea of the UN issuing edicts to anyone. Who the hell do these people think they are? Most useless organization the world has ever seen. A government for governments, as if evil needed a redundancy plan.