comparing s rights: children introducing the children s...

International Journal of Childrenrsquos Rights 18 (2010) 1ndash17

copy Koninklijke Brill NV Leiden 2010 DOI 101163157181809X457905

brillnlchil

) I wish to thank Dawn Aliberti Rachel Bryant Rachel Hammel Casey Schroeder and Robin Shura for their assistance on this project I am especially grateful to Lynn Falletta and Michael Flatt for co-directing the Children Rights Index Project

Comparing Childrenrsquos Rights Introducing the Childrenrsquos Rights Index

Brian K Gran Department of Sociology and Law School Case Western Reserve University

Abstract Childrenrsquos rights continue to be subject of international debates Moving past these debates can be facilitated with an international measure of childrenrsquos rights Th is article introduces the Childrenrsquos Rights Index an international measure of childrenrsquos rights for over 190 countries Th e Childrenrsquos Rights Index consists of two civil rights two political rights two social rights and two economic rights Th is article presents country scores on the Childrenrsquos Rights Index then examines whether childrenrsquos rights vary by region and other diff erences such as country wealth It is hoped that the Childrenrsquos Rights Index will provide evidence on childrenrsquos rights important to the work of govern-ments and nongovernmental organizations as well as scholars and others concerned about chil-drenrsquos welfare

Keywords childrenrsquos rights international comparison

Comparing Childrenrsquos Rights Introducing the Childrenrsquos Rights Index

Introduction

Across the world many government and nongovernment offi cials seek to enhance childrenrsquos rights with experts reporting on factors that appear essential to pro-moting childrenrsquos rights (UNICEF 2002 UNICEF 2004 ) Elsewhere some scholars (compare Freeman 2006 Guggenheim 2005 Simon 2000 1) ques-tion the utility of rights Are rights ldquoon the booksrdquo found in legislation and case law put into practice

Evidence exists of government and nongovernment offi cials attempting to restrain development of childrenrsquos rights (UN Committee 2008) Some schol-ars such as Savitri Goonesekere ( 1998 ) and activists like Peter Newell ( 2000

2 BK Gran International Journal of Childrenrsquos Rights 18 (2010) 1ndash17

Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children 2008) push for expansion to childrenrsquos rights despite cultural diff erences Th ese experts believe that stronger rights will result in improved outcomes for children Others con-tend that rights are valuable because they indicate the individual possessing the right is a full member of that society (Williams 1987 ) Yet some critics argue that rights will have little payoff (Glendon 1994) in contrast to views of other lead-ing experts (Freeman 2007 )

Leading scholars express concern that othersrsquo rights not only confl ict with chil-drenrsquos rights those rights are more important (Guggenheim 2005 ) Reynolds et al ( 2006 293) suggest that opponents to childrenrsquos rights say that childrenrsquos rights are useful to particular groups who already have access to power Reynolds et al ( 2006 297) state that ldquoconcern for childrenrsquos rights has been from the incep-tion linked to the sweeping political and economic processes connecting vast areas of the world into one global production systemrdquo Th ese debates however demand a starting point To answer what explains diff erences in establishment of childrenrsquos rights and whether childrenrsquos rights are valuable to childrenrsquos and othersrsquo outcomes a comparison across countries is necessary

Th is article introduces the Childrenrsquos Rights Index (CRI) Th e CRI is a meas-ure of young peoplersquos formal rights for over 190 countries for the year 2004 It is hoped that the CRI will be useful to social scientifi c research particularly studies of explanations and consequences of childrenrsquos rights across countries and globally

Th is article fi rst places the CRI in a context of larger research eff orts on chil-drenrsquos rights It then reviews the CRIrsquos construction assessing its validity and reliability After examining overall CRI scores including a map depicting a global view of childrenrsquos formal rights this article compares levels of childrenrsquos formal rights across World Bank regions Do childrenrsquos rights diff er according to where they live Can we ascertain patterns by region It then examines patterns of CRI scores according to responses to international pressures on childrenrsquos rights coun-try wealth and democracy Th e article concludes with a discussion of potential uses of the CRI its limitations and questions for future research

Conceptual Background

As the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child draws near childrenrsquos rights continue to be subject to debate Th e UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted in 1989 and provides that national governments will respect and enforce childrenrsquos rights Th e UN Convention is a focal point of childrenrsquos rights eff orts if only because nearly every national government has ratifi ed the UN Convention (Reynolds et al 2006 297) Ghana was among the fi rst governments to ratify the Convention and Oman was one of the most recent Th ere are 192 state parties to the Convention

BK Gran International Journal of Childrenrsquos Rights 18 (2010) 1ndash17 3

only two national governments have not ratifi ed the Convention Th e UN Convention may be more than or less than (Grover 2004 260) a nearly univer-sal ratifi ed childrenrsquos treaty it may serve as a ldquonormative frameworkrdquo (Ben-Arieh 2008 5) outlining goals for government offi cials and childrenrsquos rights activists (Boyle et al 2007 255 Reynolds et al 2006 297 but see Libesman 2007 ) Although the UN Convention is twenty-years old and some experts advance the notion that children have inherent rights (Ben-Arieh and Froslashnes 2007b 249) evidence indicates variation across the world in childrenrsquos rights (Boyle and Kim 2008)

Even if a national government has ratifi ed a childrenrsquos rights instrument such as the UN Convention do rights exist in the national legal framework (Maripe 2002 Odongo 2004 424) Can a young person assume that those rights will be enforced Do gaps exist between rights on the books and rights in practice (Hammad 1999 Veerman and Levine 2000 Wotipka and Ramirez 2008 312) From institutional research on human rights the concept of decoupling is used to identify the situation in which a state that has ratifi ed a treaty but not ensured those rights are put into practice Th is term highlights that a state can more easily ratify a human rights treaty which means it promises to enforce rights articulated in the treaty but not intend to implement the treatyrsquos requirements Th ere are two components to concerns about putting an international treaty into practice First has a national government endowed children with rights as a matter of law Second do children possess these rights in practice Have national governments decoupled childrenrsquos rights treaties like human rights treaties

To answer what explains diff erences in establishment of childrenrsquos rights and whether childrenrsquos rights are valuable to childrenrsquos and othersrsquo outcomes a com-parison across countries and over time is necessary In his famous work on citizen-ship rights Citizenship and Social Clas s TH Marshall ( 1964 69 70) suggested that citizenship is a status that indicates an individual is a full member of his or her society and consists of three rights civil political and social (Marshall 1964 71) For Marshall ( 1964 71 75 87) civil rights enable an individual to speak and think freely and to defend onersquos civil rights and obtain due process when another individual tries to restrict civil rights Political rights are rights individuals possess to participate fully in a political system (Marshall 1964 71-72 77-78) Marshall ( 1964 72) defi ned a political right as ldquothe right to participate in the exercise of political power as a member of a body invested with political authority or as an elector of the members of such a bodyrdquo Although Marshallrsquos notion of political rights may appear limited to voting or serving in an elected offi ce it seems fair to include within Marshallrsquos notion the ability to shape governing institutions through participation in other institutions such as schools Th e right that follows civil and political rights is social rights According to Marshall ( 1964 72 78-83) social rights enable an individual to enjoy a level of economic and social well being that permits eff ective participation in his or her own society Marshall


contended that without an education an individual could not eff ectively exercise her civil and political rights (Marshall 1964 93) Hindess ( 1993 25) states ldquoIn the absence of social rights then the impact of a formal equality of civil and political rights will be somewhat restrictedrdquo Freedom of conscience and the right to assembly for instance are more useful if an individual can read and write (Marshall 1964 97)

Other experts of sociological theories of citizenship have argued for inclusion of additional rights Bryan Turner ( 1993 7 see Soysal 1994 126-127) contends that citizenship theorists need to contend with economic rights Economic rights include freedoms from encroachments on individualsrsquo lives and harms to their welfare An economic right for instance is freedom from economic exploitation

In 1989 the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted Th e UN Convention provides that national governments signing the Convention will respect and enforce childrenrsquos rights as well as other objectives (Hanson 2008 7) Among other important items the Convention highlights diff erent rights children are expected to possess including civil rights such as freedom of conscience political rights like the right to express views and repre-sentation of those views social rights for example rights to health care and edu-cation and economic rights for instance freedom from exploitation and hazardous work (see Boyle and Kim 2008 Freeman 2004 xiv-xv) Since 1989 all national governments except those of the United States and Somalia have rati-fi ed the convention Ratifi cation means a state is committed to meeting obliga-tions set forth in the UN Convention (UN Treaty Handbook 2008)

Measurement Background

Over the last fi fteen years a host of international indicators of childrenrsquos welfare has emerged Th e various international indicators have diff erent goals For instance one goal is measuring childrenrsquos well being (Bradshaw et al 2007 ) By well-being Ben-Arieh and Froslashnes ( 2007b 249) have in mind ldquoquality of life in a broad senserdquo including ldquoeconomic conditions peer relations political rights and opportunities for developmentrdquo (compare Hanafi n et al 2006 80)

A separate fi eld of indicators is growing that focus on childrenrsquos rights Elizabeth Heger Boyle has developed a childrenrsquos rights indicator that measures how long a state took to ratify an international treaty on childrenrsquos rights such as the UN Convention More recently Boyle and Kim (2008 16) focus on rates of child labor rates of primary and secondary education enrolment and percentage of infants who are immunized

Th e fi eld of human rights relative to childrenrsquos rights is more developed Comparative-historical measures are important components of human rights research Human rights scholars have examined human rights dealing with


oppression when constructing this human rights measure Hafner-Burton and Tsutsuirsquos study (2007 411) considers a measure of repression which examines ldquofi ve levels of behaviorrdquo with one extreme being ldquopopulation-widerdquo terror with weak-to-no restrictions on decisionmakers to the other extreme which is a coun-try under rule of law where political imprisonment torture and political mur-ders are uncommon Scholars employing such a human rights measure are often interested in whether a national government has ratifi ed a human rights treaty compared to how its residents fare in practice

Another type of human rights measure examines whether a national govern-ment has ratifi ed international treaties on human rights In their work Hafner-Burton et al ( 2008 ) have examined treaty commitments One measure is ldquoAny Treaty Commitmentrdquo which is if a state ldquohas made a formal commitment to any international human rights treaty by ratifying acceding or succeeding to an agreementrdquo (Hafner-Burton and Tsutsui 2007 Hafner-Burton et al 2008 127) Hafner-Burton et al ( 2008 127) have also looked at the ldquoNumber of Treaty Commitmentsrdquo which measures to how many international human rights trea-ties has committed Hafner-Burton and Tsutsui ( 2007 409) refer to studies on ldquorelationship between the duration in years since ratifi cation of the core UN human rights laws and compliance behaviorrdquo

Th is article introduces the Childrenrsquos Rights Index Th e Childrenrsquos Rights Index is an indicator for over 190 countries of four diff erent types of childrenrsquos rights civil political social and economic Th e Childrenrsquos Rights Index indicates levels of childrenrsquos rights based in national laws with reference to restrictions in place (see below) Th e CRI may represent a measurement innovation because it conceptualizes childrenrsquos rights as a bundle of four kinds of rights For each kind of right two specifi c rights are considered so that the Childrenrsquos Rights Index consists of eight rights Consequently as one step in empirically studying chil-drenrsquos rights (see Beeckman 2004 71) the Childrenrsquos Rights Index presents evidence across a range of rights children do and do not possess

Constructing the Childrenrsquos Rights Index

As noted above a disciplinary consensus on constructs of childrenrsquos rights is emerging While the Childrenrsquos Rights Index is based on this research it is hoped that it will make a contribution to this line of research Th e Childrenrsquos Rights Index consists of two rights of four diff erent types civil political social and economic rights Th e two civil rights are freedom of conscience (Article 14 of the UN Convention) and freedom from imprisonment with adults (Article 37 of the UN Convention) Th e right to vote and the right to assemble (Article 15 of the UN Convention) are the two political rights Note that the right to vote is


not articulated in the UN Convention although some analysts contend it is an important right (Archard 2004 ) Th e two social rights are the right to education (Article 28 of the UN Convention) and the right to health care (Article 24 of the UN Convention) Freedoms from economic exploitation (Article 32 of the UN Convention) and hazardous work (Article 32 of the UN Convention) are the two economic rights in the Childrenrsquos Rights Index

Data Sources of Childrenrsquos Rights

Th e primary source of data on childrenrsquos rights is the US Department of Statersquos Country Reports on Human Rights Practices While the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices do not focus only on childrenrsquos rights the Country Reports do evaluate various childrenrsquos rights Th e State Departmentrsquos Country Reports are selected because of their breadth and depth and because experts agree they are accurate (Poe et al 2001 651) Information in the Country Reports is assembled in a stepwise format (telephone conversation with Petersen 2008 ) Offi cers of overseas bureaux of the State Department collect information on various coun-tries Th e offi cers receive information from governments nongovernmental organizations and country experts such as academics lawyers members of the media and religious offi cials (Farrar 2008) Offi cers in the State Departmentrsquos Bureau of Democracy Human Rights and Labor and in other bureaus of the State Department then prepare the Country Reports which are widely considered accurate and objective

Researchers nevertheless have compared Country Reports on Human Rights Practices with other sources of information on rights primarily to reports fi led by Amnesty International While concerns were expressed for early Country Reports (Poe et al 2001 ) experts consider Country Reports fi led in the last thirty years to be comparable to Amnesty International Reports Hafner-Burton et al ( 2008 128) fi nd that the State Department and Amnesty International Data are strongly correlated As Hafner-Burton et al ( 2008 128) suggest the US State Department data off er an important advantage of reporting on more states over more years than Amnesty International

Each member of the project team took turns gathering information on a spe -cifi c right from the Country Reports Each team member then reviewed a coun-tryrsquos State Department Country Report to identify relevant information on the specifi c right Th is team member copied this information into a spreadsheet Suff rage information was obtained from the Central Intelligence Agencyrsquos (CIA) World Factbook ( wwwodcigovciapublicationsfactbookfi elds2123html ) Th e World Factbook is intended to provide a ldquosnapshotrdquo of the world for intelli-gence purposes Th e age at which suff rage is granted was extracted and coded numerically


Coding of Childrenrsquos Rights

Each of the eight rights noted above were coded according to four levels which are (1) no right (2) right exists with signifi cant formal limitation (3) right exists with informal minor limitation and (4) right exists Th is study used the 1 to 4 coding scheme to try to capture diff erences in levels of each right for over 190 countries Rather than a dichotomy between the right existing and not existing the approach is to distinguish between when a signifi cant formal limitation on the right exists as well as when a minor limitation on the right is in place and when a right exists An example may elucidate the rationale of this ap -proach In Bangladesh for the year 2004 the right to education is only avail -able to children through age 10 a signifi cant formal limitation For the year 2004 in Suriname the right to education is limited by whether individuals can pay nominal fees Bangladesh received a score of 2 for the formal limita -tion based on age Suriname received a score of 3 for the informal limitation on fees

A four-person team was responsible for data coding Th e team consisted of the principal investigator the project director and two doctoral students Two team members separately coded each right Each team member scored the spe-cifi c country as well as provided a rationale for the score Th e project director assessed inter-rater reliability for each year If inter-rater reliability was unsatisfac-tory the project director identifi ed discrepancies then asked the two team members who coded the specifi c right to revise their scores Th e project director and principal investigator reviewed each right after team members scored all rights

Reliability Validity and Normal Distribution

To assess reliability Cronbachrsquos Alpha and inter-rater reliability were examined Cronbachrsquos Alpha is an estimate to determine if items are suffi ciently interrelated to justify their combination into an index Th e Cronbachrsquos Alpha is 714 for the Childrenrsquos Rights Index which experts consider appropriate (Garson 2008) We turned to Cohenrsquos Kappa to assess inter-rater reliability which for the Childrenrsquos Rights Index is 81 regarded as ldquoalmost perfectrdquo inter-rater reliability (Landis and Koch 1977 165)

Convergent validity concurrent validity content validity and discriminant validity were assessed Convergent validity was assessed through Cronbachrsquos Alpha To assess concurrent validity we correlated the Childrenrsquos Rights Index with a direct measure of an outcome associated with childrenrsquos rights For 138 countries for which data are available total educational expenditures relative to gross domestic product and CRI scores have a bivariate correlation of 199


(signifi cant at the 05 level) Th e project also examined discriminant validity to assess whether the CRI is highly related to ratifi cation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which could lead to the conclusion that they measure the same social phenomena Th e dates between adoption of the UN Convention and a statersquos ratifi cation have a bivariate correlation of -079 (277 for 192 countries) suggesting the CRI and time to ratify the UN Convention do not measure the same phenomena

Th e present study assessed the distribution of Childrenrsquos Rights Index scores across the 193 countries It examined the indexrsquos kurtosis which is the peaked-ness of its distribution An accepted level for a normal distribution is +2 to -2 Th e Childrenrsquos Rights Index kurtosis level is -56 Skewness is the tilt in the dis-tribution of Childrenrsquos Rights Index scores An acceptable level ranges from +2 to -2 the indexrsquos skewness is 0013

An Analysis of Childrenrsquos Rights

Childrenrsquos Rights Index Scores

Potential scores on the CRI range from 8 (a score of one on each of the eight rights) to 32 (a score of four on each of the eight rights) (see Table 1 ) Across the 193 countries CRI scores range from a minimum of 13 (Somalia and Swaziland) to a maximum of 31 (Saint Kitts and Nevis)

Th e median CRI score is 22 Nearly 26 of the countries score below 20 less than 3 score above 30 the great majority over 70 have scores from 20 to 29 Th is review however does not readily indicate patterns in levels of childrenrsquos rights

International Perspectives of Childrenrsquos Rights

We can study patterns of childrenrsquos rights by examining maps of childrenrsquos rights Below is a map of childrenrsquos rights (see Figure 1 ) Th is map suggests regional pat-terns in childrenrsquos rights Childrenrsquos formal rights appear strongest in northern and western European countries as well as Canada Childrenrsquos rights appear to be weaker in some African countries as well as elsewhere

CRI Scores by World Bank Regions

Th e World Bank has made signifi cant impacts on a variety of social political and economic issues as well as on human and childrenrsquos rights (Shihata 1996 ) Do childrenrsquos rights vary by World Bank region (see Table 2 )


Afgh

anist

an18

Cam

eroo

n19

Finl

and

30K

orea

Nor

th17

Moz

ambi

que

20Sa

udi A

rabi

a19

Uga

nda

19Al

bani

a22

Can

ada

30Fr

ance

28K

orea

Sou

th26

Nam

ibia

23Se

nega

l21

Ukr

aine

23Al

geria

23C

ape V

erde

23G

abon

19K

uwai

t22

Nau

ru24

Serb

ia a

nd

M

onte

negr

o25

Uni

ted

Arab

Em

irate

s20

Ando

rra

30C

entr

al A

frica

n

Repu

blic

16G

ambi

a22

Kyr

gyz

Re

publ

ic21

Nep

al19

Seyc

helle

s27

UK

27

Ango

la19

Cha

d17

Geo

rgia

18La

os18

Net

herla

nds

30Si

erra

Leo

ne21

USA

23An

tigua

Baru

da27

Chi

le25

Ger

man

y26

Latv

ia27

New

Zea

land

25Si

ngap

ore

22U

rugu

ay28

Arge

ntin

a26

Chi

na19

Gha

na21

Leba

non

22N

icar

agua

24Sl

ovak

ia27

Uzb

ekist

an21

Arm

enia

22C

olom

bia

25G

reec

e22

Leso

tho

25N

iger

20Sl

oven

ia29

Vanu

atu

21Au

stral

ia26

Com

oros

20G

rena

da26

Libe

ria17

Nig

eria

18So

lom

on

Is

land

s21

Vene

zuel

a24

Austr

ia27

Con

go

D

emoc

ratic

Repu

blic

of th

e

17G

uate

mal

a20

Liby

a18

Nor

way

28So

mal

ia13

Vie

tnam

19

Azer

baija

n25

Con

go R

epub

lic

of

the

23G

uine

a16

Liec

hten

stein

28O

man

20So

uth

Afric

a23

Yem

en17

Baha

mas

23C

osta

Ric

a25

Gui

nea

Bi

ssau

23Li

thua

nia

24Pa

kista

n16

Spai

n29

Zam

bia

17

Bahr

ain

22C

ote

drsquoIv

oire

20G

uyan

a24

Luxe

mbo

urg

27Pa

lau

26Sr

i Lan

ka23

Zim

babw

e16

Bang

lade

sh17

Cro

atia

27H

aiti

18M

acau

22Pa

nam

a23

Suda

n17

Barb

ados

28C

uba

20H

ondu

ras

22M

aced

onia

20Pa

pua

New

Gui

nea

20Su

rinam

e21

Bela

rus

25C

ypru

s23

Hun

gary

28M

adag

asca

r21

Para

guay

24Sw

azila

nd13

Belg

ium

26C

zech

Rep

ublic

27Ic

elan

d24

Mal

awi

20Pe

ru23

Swed

en29

Beliz

e21

Den

mar

k26

Indi

a20

Mal

aysia

17Ph

ilipp

ines

20Sw

itzer

land

25

Tabl

e 1

Chi

ldre

nrsquos R

ight

s Ind

ex S

core

s of c

hild

renrsquo

s for

mal

rig

hts (

2004

)


Beni

n20

Djib

outi

20In

done

sia18

Mal

dive

s21

Pola

nd21

Syria

20Bh

utan

15D

omin

ica

26Ir

an17

Mal

i20

Port

ugal

25Ta

iwan

26Bo

livia

17D

omin

ican

Repu

blic

19Ir

aq19

Mal

ta28

Qat

ar23

Tajik

istan

22

Bosn

ia a

nd

H

erze

govi

na19

East

Tim

or18

Irel

and

23M

arsh

all

Is

land

s21

Rom

ania

24Ta

nzan

ia19

Botsw

ana

23Ec

uado

r24

Isra

el24

Mau

ritan

ia18

Russ

ia22

Th ai

land

23Br

azil

25Eg

ypt

19Ita

ly24

Mau

ritiu

s25

Rw

anda

20To

go19

Brun

ei16

El S

alva

dor

24Ja

mai

ca24

Mex

ico

23Sa

int K

itts

an

d N

evis

31To

nga

24

Bulg

aria

22Eq

uato

rial

G

uine

a16

Japa

n28

Mic

rone

sia19

Sain

t Luc

ia25

Trin

idad

and

Toba

go26

Burk

ina

Faso

26Er

itrea

16Jo

rdan

21M

oldo

va17

Sain

t Vin

cent

and

the

G

rena

dine

s

22Tu

nisia

23

Burm

a16

Esto

nia

27K

azak

hsta

n26

Mon

aco

29Sa

moa

23Tu

rkey

20Bu

rund

i20

Ethi

opia

19K

enya

17M

ongo

lia22

San

Mar

ino

28Tu

rkm

enist

an20

Cam

bodi

a19

Fiji

22K

iriba

ti28

Mor

occo

21Sa

o To

me

and

Pr

inci

pia

25Tu

valu

27

Tabl

e 1

(con

t)


Figu

re 1

C

hild

renrsquos

Rig

hts I

ndex

Tot

al


When considering World Bank regions on average the highest levels of chil-drenrsquos formal rights are found in Latin America and the Caribbean followed by Europe and Central Asia Th e lowest CRI scores are typically found in the World Bank Africa region

It is important to note however that the range of scores among countries mak-ing up these World Bank regions is largest not only for the Latin America and Caribbean region but for the Africa region Th e narrowest range of scores is found in the Middle East and North Africa region for which the mean score of 2056 and median score of 2050 are low Th is narrow range suggests that chil-dren living in most Middle East and North Africa countries do not possess strong formal rights

Are countries scoring low medium and high on the CRI characterized by dif-ferences in their wealth responses to international pressures or levels of democ-racy (see Table 3 ) Comparing average wealth measured as gross domestic product per capita children living in countries with greater wealth tend to enjoy higher levels of rights On the other hand children whose national governments quickly ratifi ed the UN Convention tend to possess moderate levels of rights In con-trast children living in countries whose national governments were later ratifi ers of the Con-vention tend to possess fewer rights but children living in the latest ratifi ers seem to possess the highest level of rights Children living in stronger democracies as measured by Vanhanen ( 2008 ) tend to enjoy stronger levels of

Table 3 CRI scores by National Diff erences

CRI scoresAElig Below 20 20-29 30+

Average gross domestic product per capita

$279490 $908089 $1942000

Days to UN Convention ratifi cation

1015 90383 1143

Democracy levels 596 1834 3040

Table 2 CRI scores by World Bank Regions

Region Mean Median Range Std Dev

Africa 1955 2000 14 330East Asia amp Pacifi c 2040 1900 11 325Europe amp Central Asia 2325 2250 12 324Latin America amp Caribbean 2397 2400 14 303Middle East amp North Africa 2056 2050 7 212South Asia 2043 1950 11 341


rights according to the CRI A higher score on Vanhanenrsquos Index of Democracy indicates stronger democracy

Discussion

As a measure of childrenrsquos rights across countries the Childrenrsquos Rights Index provides empirical evidence of childrenrsquos formal rights Rather than identify whether or not a right exists the CRI analyzes rights as matters of degree To reit-erate the CRI consists of eight diff erent rights each of which ranges from 1 to 4 so that CRI scores can potentially be 8 to 32 In the context of broader work on childrenrsquos rights the CRI represents an important step in measuring childrenrsquos rights As a valid and reliable measure it is hoped that scholars and advocates can use the CRI to answer critical questions to childrenrsquos rights research

Th is article presents evidence that childrenrsquos rights vary across countries Nearly 26 of the countries score below 20 nearly 72 score below 30 and less than 3 score above 30 While no country receives a score of 8 the lowest possible score no country receives a score of 32 the highest possible score Th is variation is in contrast to nearly universal ratifi cation of the UN Convention raising questions of whether national governments are able or willing to implement childrenrsquos rights according to this rights instrument

While there is substantial international variation in childrenrsquos rights important patterns are revealed Considering countries with lower CRI scores the lowest scoring region is Africa although the greatest variation among countries is among African countries and Latin American and Caribbean countries Th e World Bankrsquos region of the Middle Easter and North Africa tend to share similar scores with a mean CRI score of 2056 Th ese fi ndings raise questions for diff erences and similarities in childrenrsquos rights across countries

Th is article suggests that childrenrsquos rights do vary according to international pressures country wealth and democracy Th e wealthier and more democratic a country the higher levels of rights its children seem to possess On the other hand international pressures appear to have mixed impacts Children living in countries whose national governments were quick to ratify the UN Convention tend to have moderate levels of rights but countries with low and high scores are late ratifi ers Th is result suggests that ratifying the UN Convention is not enough to improve childrenrsquos rights

Conclusion and Future Research

Th e CRI focuses on childrenrsquos formal rights An important concern raised by law and society scholars is whether rights matter to childrenrsquos outcomes Th is project has approached childrenrsquos rights by fi rst separating childrenrsquos rights in law relative


to rights in practice Th e CRI can be used by law and society researchers to exam-ine diff erences in rights on the books with rights in practice

It is hoped that researchers can use the CRI to study the question of whether rights matter Even if a country has not fi rmly established childrenrsquos formal rights do children do well in practice If the answer is no then scholars policy makers and advocates of childrenrsquos rights should bolster their eff orts in advancing and implementing childrenrsquos rights If the answer to this question is yes that there is a weak link between childrenrsquos rights and childrenrsquos welfare then scholars and policy makers should then ask whether alternatives to rights should be explored for improving well being of young people (Reynolds et al 2006 292)

Analyses of the CRI indicate childrenrsquos formal rights vary signifi cantly across countries Very few are the countries where childrenrsquos formal rights are extensive Instead children in most countries possess moderate levels of formal rights In many more countries are children entitled to fewer formal rights compared to countries where children enjoy strong formal rights Th is fi nding raises concerns about treaty decoupling It is hoped that the CRI will be useful to identify states that have decoupled practices from treaties In the future researchers can use the CRI to illuminate distances between childrenrsquos rights treaties and implementa-tion of childrenrsquos rights Th ese descriptive analyses suggest the phenomenon of decoupling treaties from practices should be examined for childrenrsquos rights

Researchers may explore other consequences of childrenrsquos rights including changes to families and other social groups (Hanson 2007 ) Scholars may use the CRI to compare young peoplersquos perspectives of their rights across countries (Khoury-Kassabri and Ben-Arieh 2008 ) Future research can use the CRI to investigate whether childrenrsquos rights coincide with human rights across countries Th e CRI can contribute to research on childrenrsquos rights by considering whether theoretical explanations of human rights are strong explanations for diff erences in childrenrsquos rights For example strong evidence exists in support of external infl u-ences on human rights Are external factors similarly powerful explanations of why children do or do not possess rights Likewise are internal factors found to have impacts on human rights similarly powerful explanations of childrenrsquos rights Th e CRI can be used to evaluate institutions and policies specifi cally established to further childrenrsquos rights As an example researchers can use the CRI to answer the question of whether institutions set up specifi cally to augment childrenrsquos rights such as national independent childrenrsquos rights institutions (sometimes called childrenrsquos commissioners and childrenrsquos ombudspersons) promote chil-drenrsquos rights (Gran and Aliberti 2003 )

It is anticipated that disaggregating the Childrenrsquos Rights Index into the four types of rights will be useful to determining whether some factors are more pow-erful explanations of types of rights For instance historical research (Detrick et al 1992 ) suggests that leaders of some countries have advocated for strong social rights and some leaders have pursued strong civil rights Researchers can


employ the CRI to study whether children living in some countries are entitled to weaker social rights compared to civil rights Another question to be pursued is whether children living in earlier ratifi ers of the UN Convention possess stronger rights of some kinds compared to children who live in late-ratifying countries

Future research should include measures of additional rights Th e CRI is for one time point 2004 expanding the CRI to other time points will enable researchers to examine changes in rights and the causes and consequences of these changes Th e CRI is a measure of rights for all ages of children In the future researchers may consider diff erences among various age groups

Th e CRI represents a small step in comparative research on childrenrsquos rights It is hoped that the CRI will be a useful resource for scholars policy makers and advocates of childrenrsquos rights

References

Archard D Children Rights and Childhood ( New York Routledge 2004 ) Beeckman K ldquoMeasuring the Implementation of the Right to Educationrdquo Th e International

Journal of Childrenrsquos Rights 2004 ( 12 ) 71 - 84 Ben-Arieh A ldquoBeyond Welfare Measuring and Monitoring the State of ChildrenmdashNew Trends

and Domainsrdquo Social Indicators Research 2000 (52) 235 - 257 Ben-Arieh A ldquoWhere are the Children Childrenrsquos Role in Measuring and Monitoring their Well-

Beingrdquo Social Indicators Research 2005 (74) 573 - 596 Ben-Arieh A ldquoTh e Child Indicators Movement Past Present and Futurerdquo Child Indicators

Research 2008 (1) 3 - 16 Ben-Arieh A and Froslashnes I ldquoIndicators of Childrenrsquos Well Being Th eory Types and Usagerdquo Social

Indicators Research 2007a (83) 1 - 4 Ben-Arieh A and Froslashnes I ldquoIndicators of Childrenrsquos Well being What should be Measured and

Whyrdquo Social Indicators Research 2007b (84) 249 - 250 Boyle E H and Kim M ldquoInternational Human Rights Neoliberal Economic Reforms and

Child Rights Outcomesrdquo Presented to the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association Boston Massachusetts

Boyle EH Smith T and Guenther K ldquoTh e Rise of the Child as an Individual in Global Societyrdquo in S A Venkatesh and R Kassimir (eds) Youth Globalization and the Law ( Palo Alto Stanford University Press 2007 )

Bradshaw J Hoelscher P and Richardson D ldquoAn Index of Child Well-Being in the European Unionrdquo Social Indicators Research 2007 (80) 133 - 177

Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook ( Washington US Government Printing Offi ce Various years)

Detrick S Doek J Cantwell N and Martenson J Th e United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ( Leiden Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1992 )

Farrar J ldquoRemarks on the State Departmentrsquos 2007 Country Reports on Human Rights Practicesrdquo Available at wwwstategovgdrlrlsrm2008102116htm Accessed August 15 2008

Freeman M DA Childrenrsquos Rights (volumes I and II) ( Dartmouth Ashgate 2004 ) Freeman M DA ldquoWhatrsquos Right with Childrenrsquos Rightsrdquo International Journal of Law in Context

2006 (2) 89 - 98 Freeman M D A ldquoWhy It Remains Important to Take Childrenrsquos Rights Seriouslyrdquo Th e

International Journal of Childrenrsquos Rights 2007 (15) 5 - 23


Garson D ldquoScales and Standard Measuresrdquo www2chassncsuedugarsonpa765standardhtm Accessed July 14 2008

Glendon M A Rights Talk ( New York Free Press 1991 ) Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children wwwendcorporalpunishment

org Accessed August 14 2008 Goonesekere S Children Law and Justice ( Th ousand Oaks Sage Publications 1998 ) Gran B and Aliberti D ldquoTh e Offi ce of the Childrenrsquos Ombudsperson Childrenrsquos Rights and

Social-Policy Innovationrdquo International Journal of the Sociology of Law 2003 ( 31 (2) ) 89 - 106 Grover S ldquoOn Recognizing Childrenrsquos Universal Rightsrdquo Th e International Journal of Childrenrsquos

Rights 2004 259 - 271 Guggenheim M Whatrsquos Wrong with Childrenrsquos Rights ( Cambridge Harvard University Press

2005 ) Hafner-Burton E and Tsutsui K ldquoJustice Lost Th e Failure of International Human Rights Law

to Matter Where Needed Mostrdquo Journal of Peace Research 2007 ( 44 (4) ) 407 - 425 Hafner-Burton E Tsutsui K and Meyer JW ldquoInternational Human Rights Law and the Politics

of Legitimationrdquo International Sociology 2008 ( 23 (1) ) 115 - 141 Hammad S H ldquoTh e CRC lsquoWords on Paperrsquo or Reality for Childrenrdquo Th e International Journal

of Childrenrsquos Rights 1999 (7) 215 - 237 Hanafi n S Brooks A Carroll E Fitzgerald E Gabhainn S and Sixsmith J ldquoAchieving

Consensus in Developing a National Set of Child Well-being Indicatorsrdquo Social Indicators Research 2006 (80) 79 - 104

Hanson K ldquoConcluding Remarks Does the Practice also Work in Th eoryrdquo in Th e UN Childrenrsquos Rights Convention Th eory Meets Practice Proceedings of the International Interdisciplinary Conference on Childrenrsquos Rights ( Ghent 2007 )

Hanson K ldquoSchools of Th ought in Childrenrsquos Rightsrdquo in A Ben-Arieh J Cashmore G Goodman J Kampmann and GB Melton (eds) Handbook of Child Research ( London Sage 2008 )

Hindess B ldquoCitizenship in the Modern Westrdquo in BS Turner (eds) Citizenship and Social Th eory ( London Sage 1993 )

Khoury-Kassabri M and Ben-Arieh A ldquoAdolescentsrsquo Approach toward Childrenrsquos Rights Comparison between Christian Jewish and Muslim Children in Jerusalemrdquo Journal of Social Issues 2008 ( 64 (4) ) 881 - 901

Libesman T ldquoCan International Law Imagine the World of Indigenous Childrenrdquo Th e International Journal of Childrenrsquos Rights 2007 (15) 283 - 309

Maripe B ldquoTh e Recognition and Enforcement of Childrenrsquos Rights in Domestic Lawrdquo Th e International Journal of Childrenrsquos Rights 2002 (9) 339 - 359

Marshall T H Class Citizenship and Social Development ( Garden City Doubleday 1964 ) Newell P Taking Children Seriously ( London Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation 2000 ) Odongo G O ldquoTh e Domestication of International Standards on the Rights of the Childrdquo Th e

International Journal of Childrenrsquos Rights 2004 (12) 419 - 430 Petersen J L Telephone conversation with principal investigator and Ms Petersen US

Department of State June 23 2008 Poe SC Carey SC and Vazquez TC ldquoHow are these Pictures Diff erent A Quantitative

Comparison of the US State Department and Amnesty International Human Rights Reports 1976-1995rdquo Human Rights Quarterly 2001 ( 23 (3) ) 650 - 677

Reynolds P Nieuwenhuys O and Hanson K ldquoRefractions of Childrenrsquos Rights in Development Practice A View from AnthropologymdashIntroductionrdquo Childhood 2006 ( 13 (3) ) 291 - 302

Shihata I FI ldquoTh e World Bankrsquos Promotion and Protection of Childrenrsquos Rightsrdquo Th e International Journal of Childrenrsquos Rights 1996 (4) 383 - 406

Soysal Y Limits of Citizenship ( Chicago University of Chicago Press 1994 ) Turner BS ldquoContemporary Problems in the Th eory of Citizenshiprdquo in B S Turner (eds)

Citizenship and Social Th eory ( London Sage 1993 ) UNICEF ldquoSummary Report of the Study on the Impact of the Implementation of the Convention

on the Rights of the Childrdquo ( Florence UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre 2004 )


UNICEF ldquoUNICEFrsquos Priorities for Children 2002-2005rdquo ( Florence UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre 2002 )

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child www2ohchrorgenglishbodiesratifi cation11htm Accessed August 14 2008

US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices ( Washington Various years)

Vanhanen T wwwprionoCSCWDatasetsGovernanceVanhanens-index-of-democracy Accessed August 13 2008

Veerman P and Hephzibah L ldquoImplementing Childrenrsquos Rights on a Local Levelrdquo Th e International Journal of Childrenrsquos Rights 2000 (8) 373 - 384

Williams P ldquoAlchemical Notes Reconstructing Ideals from Deconstructed Rightsrdquo Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 1987 (22) 401 - 33

Wotipka C M and Ramirez F O ldquoWorld Society and Human Rights An Event History Analysis of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Womenrdquo in B Simmons F Dobbin and G Garrett (eds) Th e Global Diff usion of Markets and Democracy ( New York Cambridge University Press 2008 )

Legal Case Cited

DeShaney v Winnebago County Department of Social Services 489 US 189 196 103 L Ed 2d 249 109 S Ct 998 (1989)


Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children 2008) push for expansion to childrenrsquos rights despite cultural diff erences Th ese experts believe that stronger rights will result in improved outcomes for children Others con-tend that rights are valuable because they indicate the individual possessing the right is a full member of that society (Williams 1987 ) Yet some critics argue that rights will have little payoff (Glendon 1994) in contrast to views of other lead-ing experts (Freeman 2007 )

Leading scholars express concern that othersrsquo rights not only confl ict with chil-drenrsquos rights those rights are more important (Guggenheim 2005 ) Reynolds et al ( 2006 293) suggest that opponents to childrenrsquos rights say that childrenrsquos rights are useful to particular groups who already have access to power Reynolds et al ( 2006 297) state that ldquoconcern for childrenrsquos rights has been from the incep-tion linked to the sweeping political and economic processes connecting vast areas of the world into one global production systemrdquo Th ese debates however demand a starting point To answer what explains diff erences in establishment of childrenrsquos rights and whether childrenrsquos rights are valuable to childrenrsquos and othersrsquo outcomes a comparison across countries is necessary

Th is article introduces the Childrenrsquos Rights Index (CRI) Th e CRI is a meas-ure of young peoplersquos formal rights for over 190 countries for the year 2004 It is hoped that the CRI will be useful to social scientifi c research particularly studies of explanations and consequences of childrenrsquos rights across countries and globally

Th is article fi rst places the CRI in a context of larger research eff orts on chil-drenrsquos rights It then reviews the CRIrsquos construction assessing its validity and reliability After examining overall CRI scores including a map depicting a global view of childrenrsquos formal rights this article compares levels of childrenrsquos formal rights across World Bank regions Do childrenrsquos rights diff er according to where they live Can we ascertain patterns by region It then examines patterns of CRI scores according to responses to international pressures on childrenrsquos rights coun-try wealth and democracy Th e article concludes with a discussion of potential uses of the CRI its limitations and questions for future research

Conceptual Background

As the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child draws near childrenrsquos rights continue to be subject to debate Th e UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted in 1989 and provides that national governments will respect and enforce childrenrsquos rights Th e UN Convention is a focal point of childrenrsquos rights eff orts if only because nearly every national government has ratifi ed the UN Convention (Reynolds et al 2006 297) Ghana was among the fi rst governments to ratify the Convention and Oman was one of the most recent Th ere are 192 state parties to the Convention












































Afgh

anist

an18

Cam

eroo

n19

Finl

and

30K

orea

Nor

th17

Moz

ambi

que

20Sa

udi A

rabi

a19

Uga

nda

19Al

bani

a22

Can

ada

30Fr

ance

28K

orea

Sou

th26

Nam

ibia

23Se

nega

l21

Ukr

aine

23Al

geria

23C

ape V

erde

23G

abon

19K

uwai

t22

Nau

ru24

Serb

ia a

nd

M

onte

negr

o25

Uni

ted

Arab

Em

irate

s20

Ando

rra

30C

entr

al A

frica

n

Repu

blic

16G

ambi

a22

Kyr

gyz

Re

publ

ic21

Nep

al19

Seyc

helle

s27

UK

27

Ango

la19

Cha

d17

Geo

rgia

18La

os18

Net

herla

nds

30Si

erra

Leo

ne21

USA

23An

tigua

Baru

da27

Chi

le25

Ger

man

y26

Latv

ia27

New

Zea

land

25Si

ngap

ore

22U

rugu

ay28

Arge

ntin

a26

Chi

na19

Gha

na21

Leba

non

22N

icar

agua

24Sl

ovak

ia27

Uzb

ekist

an21

Arm

enia

22C

olom

bia

25G

reec

e22

Leso

tho

25N

iger

20Sl

oven

ia29

Vanu

atu

21Au

stral

ia26

Com

oros

20G

rena

da26

Libe

ria17

Nig

eria

18So

lom

on

Is

land

s21

Vene

zuel

a24

Austr

ia27

Con

go

D

emoc

ratic

Repu

blic

of th

e

17G

uate

mal

a20

Liby

a18

Nor

way

28So

mal

ia13

Vie

tnam

19

Azer

baija

n25

Con

go R

epub

lic

of

the

23G

uine

a16

Liec

hten

stein

28O

man

20So

uth

Afric

a23

Yem

en17

Baha

mas

23C

osta

Ric

a25

Gui

nea

Bi

ssau

23Li

thua

nia

24Pa

kista

n16

Spai

n29

Zam

bia

17

Bahr

ain

22C

ote

drsquoIv

oire

20G

uyan

a24

Luxe

mbo

urg

27Pa

lau

26Sr

i Lan

ka23

Zim

babw

e16

Bang

lade

sh17

Cro

atia

27H

aiti

18M

acau

22Pa

nam

a23

Suda

n17

Barb

ados

28C

uba

20H

ondu

ras

22M

aced

onia

20Pa

pua

New

Gui

nea

20Su

rinam

e21

Bela

rus

25C

ypru

s23

Hun

gary

28M

adag

asca

r21

Para

guay

24Sw

azila

nd13

Belg

ium

26C

zech

Rep

ublic

27Ic

elan

d24

Mal

awi

20Pe

ru23

Swed

en29

Beliz

e21

Den

mar

k26

Indi

a20

Mal

aysia

17Ph

ilipp

ines

20Sw

itzer

land

25

Tabl

e 1

Chi

ldre

nrsquos R

ight

s Ind

ex S

core

s of c

hild

renrsquo

s for

mal

rig

hts (

2004

)


Beni

n20

Djib

outi

20In

done

sia18

Mal

dive

s21

Pola

nd21

Syria

20Bh

utan

15D

omin

ica

26Ir

an17

Mal

i20

Port

ugal

25Ta

iwan

26Bo

livia

17D

omin

ican

Repu

blic

19Ir

aq19

Mal

ta28

Qat

ar23

Tajik

istan

22

Bosn

ia a

nd

H

erze

govi

na19

East

Tim

or18

Irel

and

23M

arsh

all

Is

land

s21

Rom

ania

24Ta

nzan

ia19

Botsw

ana

23Ec

uado

r24

Isra

el24

Mau

ritan

ia18

Russ

ia22

Th ai

land

23Br

azil

25Eg

ypt

19Ita

ly24

Mau

ritiu

s25

Rw

anda

20To

go19

Brun

ei16

El S

alva

dor

24Ja

mai

ca24

Mex

ico

23Sa

int K

itts

an

d N

evis

31To

nga

24

Bulg

aria

22Eq

uato

rial

G

uine

a16

Japa

n28

Mic

rone

sia19

Sain

t Luc

ia25

Trin

idad

and

Toba

go26

Burk

ina

Faso

26Er

itrea

16Jo

rdan

21M

oldo

va17

Sain

t Vin

cent

and

the

G

rena

dine

s

22Tu

nisia

23

Burm

a16

Esto

nia

27K

azak

hsta

n26

Mon

aco

29Sa

moa

23Tu

rkey

20Bu

rund

i20

Ethi

opia

19K

enya

17M

ongo

lia22

San

Mar

ino

28Tu

rkm

enist

an20

Cam

bodi

a19

Fiji

22K

iriba

ti28

Mor

occo

21Sa

o To

me

and

Pr

inci

pia

25Tu

valu

27

Tabl

e 1

(con

t)


Figu

re 1

C

hild

renrsquos

Rig

hts I

ndex

Tot

al








$279490 $908089 $1942000


1015 90383 1143







Discussion

















References



















































Legal Case Cited













































Afgh

anist

an18

Cam

eroo

n19

Finl

and

30K

orea

Nor

th17

Moz

ambi

que

20Sa

udi A

rabi

a19

Uga

nda

19Al

bani

a22

Can

ada

30Fr

ance

28K

orea

Sou

th26

Nam

ibia

23Se

nega

l21

Ukr

aine

23Al

geria

23C

ape V

erde

23G

abon

19K

uwai

t22

Nau

ru24

Serb

ia a

nd

M

onte

negr

o25

Uni

ted

Arab

Em

irate

s20

Ando

rra

30C

entr

al A

frica

n

Repu

blic

16G

ambi

a22

Kyr

gyz

Re

publ

ic21

Nep

al19

Seyc

helle

s27

UK

27

Ango

la19

Cha

d17

Geo

rgia

18La

os18

Net

herla

nds

30Si

erra

Leo

ne21

USA

23An

tigua

Baru

da27

Chi

le25

Ger

man

y26

Latv

ia27

New

Zea

land

25Si

ngap

ore

22U

rugu

ay28

Arge

ntin

a26

Chi

na19

Gha

na21

Leba

non

22N

icar

agua

24Sl

ovak

ia27

Uzb

ekist

an21

Arm

enia

22C

olom

bia

25G

reec

e22

Leso

tho

25N

iger

20Sl

oven

ia29

Vanu

atu

21Au

stral

ia26

Com

oros

20G

rena

da26

Libe

ria17

Nig

eria

18So

lom

on

Is

land

s21

Vene

zuel

a24

Austr

ia27

Con

go

D

emoc

ratic

Repu

blic

of th

e

17G

uate

mal

a20

Liby

a18

Nor

way

28So

mal

ia13

Vie

tnam

19

Azer

baija

n25

Con

go R

epub

lic

of

the

23G

uine

a16

Liec

hten

stein

28O

man

20So

uth

Afric

a23

Yem

en17

Baha

mas

23C

osta

Ric

a25

Gui

nea

Bi

ssau

23Li

thua

nia

24Pa

kista

n16

Spai

n29

Zam

bia

17

Bahr

ain

22C

ote

drsquoIv

oire

20G

uyan

a24

Luxe

mbo

urg

27Pa

lau

26Sr

i Lan

ka23

Zim

babw

e16

Bang

lade

sh17

Cro

atia

27H

aiti

18M

acau

22Pa

nam

a23

Suda

n17

Barb

ados

28C

uba

20H

ondu

ras

22M

aced

onia

20Pa

pua

New

Gui

nea

20Su

rinam

e21

Bela

rus

25C

ypru

s23

Hun

gary

28M

adag

asca

r21

Para

guay

24Sw

azila

nd13

Belg

ium

26C

zech

Rep

ublic

27Ic

elan

d24

Mal

awi

20Pe

ru23

Swed

en29

Beliz

e21

Den

mar

k26

Indi

a20

Mal

aysia

17Ph

ilipp

ines

20Sw

itzer

land

25

Tabl

e 1

Chi

ldre

nrsquos R

ight

s Ind

ex S

core

s of c

hild

renrsquo

s for

mal

rig

hts (

2004

)


Beni

n20

Djib

outi

20In

done

sia18

Mal

dive

s21

Pola

nd21

Syria

20Bh

utan

15D

omin

ica

26Ir

an17

Mal

i20

Port

ugal

25Ta

iwan

26Bo

livia

17D

omin

ican

Repu

blic

19Ir

aq19

Mal

ta28

Qat

ar23

Tajik

istan

22

Bosn

ia a

nd

H

erze

govi

na19

East

Tim

or18

Irel

and

23M

arsh

all

Is

land

s21

Rom

ania

24Ta

nzan

ia19

Botsw

ana

23Ec

uado

r24

Isra

el24

Mau

ritan

ia18

Russ

ia22

Th ai

land

23Br

azil

25Eg

ypt

19Ita

ly24

Mau

ritiu

s25

Rw

anda

20To

go19

Brun

ei16

El S

alva

dor

24Ja

mai

ca24

Mex

ico

23Sa

int K

itts

an

d N

evis

31To

nga

24

Bulg

aria

22Eq

uato

rial

G

uine

a16

Japa

n28

Mic

rone

sia19

Sain

t Luc

ia25

Trin

idad

and

Toba

go26

Burk

ina

Faso

26Er

itrea

16Jo

rdan

21M

oldo

va17

Sain

t Vin

cent

and

the

G

rena

dine

s

22Tu

nisia

23

Burm

a16

Esto

nia

27K

azak

hsta

n26

Mon

aco

29Sa

moa

23Tu

rkey

20Bu

rund

i20

Ethi

opia

19K

enya

17M

ongo

lia22

San

Mar

ino

28Tu

rkm

enist

an20

Cam

bodi

a19

Fiji

22K

iriba

ti28

Mor

occo

21Sa

o To

me

and

Pr

inci

pia

25Tu

valu

27

Tabl

e 1

(con

t)


Figu

re 1

C

hild

renrsquos

Rig

hts I

ndex

Tot

al








$279490 $908089 $1942000


1015 90383 1143







Discussion

















References



















































Legal Case Cited



Beni

n20

Djib

outi

20In

done

sia18

Mal

dive

s21

Pola

nd21

Syria

20Bh

utan

15D

omin

ica

26Ir

an17

Mal

i20

Port

ugal

25Ta

iwan

26Bo

livia

17D

omin

ican

Repu

blic

19Ir

aq19

Mal

ta28

Qat

ar23

Tajik

istan

22

Bosn

ia a

nd

H

erze

govi

na19

East

Tim

or18

Irel

and

23M

arsh

all

Is

land

s21

Rom

ania

24Ta

nzan

ia19

Botsw

ana

23Ec

uado

r24

Isra

el24

Mau

ritan

ia18

Russ

ia22

Th ai

land

23Br

azil

25Eg

ypt

19Ita

ly24

Mau

ritiu

s25

Rw

anda

20To

go19

Brun

ei16

El S

alva

dor

24Ja

mai

ca24

Mex

ico

23Sa

int K

itts

an

d N

evis

31To

nga

24

Bulg

aria

22Eq

uato

rial

G

uine

a16

Japa

n28

Mic

rone

sia19

Sain

t Luc

ia25

Trin

idad

and

Toba

go26

Burk

ina

Faso

26Er

itrea

16Jo

rdan

21M

oldo

va17

Sain

t Vin

cent

and

the

G

rena

dine

s

22Tu

nisia

23

Burm

a16

Esto

nia

27K

azak

hsta

n26

Mon

aco

29Sa

moa

23Tu

rkey

20Bu

rund

i20

Ethi

opia

19K

enya

17M

ongo

lia22

San

Mar

ino

28Tu

rkm

enist

an20

Cam

bodi

a19

Fiji

22K

iriba

ti28

Mor

occo

21Sa

o To

me

and

Pr

inci

pia

25Tu

valu

27

Tabl

e 1

(con

t)


Figu

re 1

C

hild

renrsquos

Rig

hts I

ndex

Tot

al








$279490 $908089 $1942000


1015 90383 1143







Discussion

















References



















































Legal Case Cited



Figu

re 1

C

hild

renrsquos

Rig

hts I

ndex

Tot

al








$279490 $908089 $1942000


1015 90383 1143







Discussion

















References



















































Legal Case Cited









$279490 $908089 $1942000


1015 90383 1143







Discussion

















References



















































Legal Case Cited




Discussion

















References



















































Legal Case Cited












References



















































Legal Case Cited




































Legal Case Cited


comparing s rights: children introducing the children s...

Documents