The Syrian government’s massacre of 108 civilians in Houla last Friday was a horrific episode in a pattern of ongoing killings, but the cruelty of the act was underscored by the identity of its victims: 49 were children. While the event has resulted in the expulsion of Syrian envoys by the United States (and a host of other countries in the West), it calls attention to the two nations’ somewhat ironic records of political support for international children’s rights.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child, a United Nations treaty that declares standards for the basic human rights to be afforded to children worldwide, has yet to be ratified by only two member states: the U.S. and Somalia (a nation with an egregious history of human rights abuses). The U.S. helped to draft the Convention and signed it in 1995, in addition to later ratifying both optional protocols to the treaty (which dealt with the involvement of children in military conflicts, the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography).
However, the Convention was never submitted to the U.S. Senate for approval. By comparison, Syria signed the treaty in 1990 and ratified it in 1993, expressing approval for all provisions except those regarding adoption and freedom of religion.
Why are the diplomatic approaches of the U.S. and Syria so contrary to their actions as nations? Those who oppose the treaty in the U.S. give several reasons for why the government should maintain its position and refuse to ratify. One of the foremost claims is that the treaty would impede upon American parents’ right to raise a child as they see fit. This is a subset of a broader and more general resistance to U.S. participation in international treaties, with the rationale that doing so erodes American sovereignty and federalism.
The fear of infringement upon parental rights is unsupported by the actual text of the Convention. Article 5 specifically states that ratifying nations “shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents…as provided for by local custom” with the treaty’s “appropriate direction and guidance.” What this essentially means is that parents in each country may raise their children however they like as long as they do not violate basic tenets of human rights.
It is also highly unlikely that the Convention would encroach upon American sovereignty. To begin with, the Supremacy Clause strictly limits this possibility in stating that no treaty may override the Constitution. Secondly, there’s no compelling argument that the current treatment of children in the U.S. would legally violate the Convention, but even if it did, the U.N. has no real enforcement authority over member states.
The treaty merely requires its members to present regular reports detailing whether the terms of the treaty are being followed. Compliance is monitored by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, whose sole enforcement mechanism would be a written admonishment.
Even the U.N. itself recognizes the Conventions’ limitations: Its Manual on Human Rights Reporting states that the Committee is intended to encourage (rather than force) compliance by member states. Finally, the worry that the Convention would develop into a rule of customary international law is, for better or for worse, obsolete: it has already been ratified by more nations than any other human rights treaty in history.
Unfortunately, the U.N.’s lack of muscle also means that a type of political double-dealing endures in places like Syria. Children’s rights abuses are allowed to continue unchecked even in states that have promised to uphold the treaty. Thus, the Syrian government carries on the indiscriminate killing of children without facing more than symbolic, diplomatic censure. This hypocrisy reflects a larger reality of futility in the U.N.’s enforcement of human rights law.
Nations can claim support for a treaty while committing the very acts they have pledged to combat.
So why ratify at all? Because the U.S. has always been a standard bearer for international human rights. As the world’s premier economic superpower and emblem of democracy, America has a duty to set an example for other nations.
What message do we send when we admonish Syria for its treatment of children but have yet to ratify the Convention ourselves? We have an opportunity to reaffirm our support for children’s rights while condemning Syria’s hypocritical posturing regarding the same. The U.S. should embrace a 21st-century vision of human rights that grants to all the world’s citizens the same rights we enjoy here at home.
Zack Kousnetz is a student-fellow at the Children Right’s Institute and a rising second-year student at New York University School of Law.
