2019-12-02_Time

35

PROTECTING

RIGHTS

PARTNERS

Jolie and

Van Bueren

(below) are

collaborating

with Amnesty

International

on two books

for children

about

their rights

ESTEEMED

COMPANY

Van Bueren is

an honorary

member of

the Queen’s

Counsel

because

of her

contributions

to global law

54

Number of

articles in

the U.N.

convention

that define

children’s

rights and how

governments

should work

together to

ensure them

TheView Q & A

Securing a better future

for children

By Angelina Jolie

When the Charter of the U.n. Was signed in san

Francisco in June 1945, it promised equal rights for all but made

no specific mention of children. Thirty years ago, the U.N. Con-

vention on the Rights of the Child was adopted, recognizing for

the first time that children have their own rights, distinct from

adults’. The distinction is vital to the millions of children who

still live with conflict, poverty, violence and abuse. Professor

Geraldine Van Bueren was one of the drafters of the conven-

tion. I asked her if it has lived up to its promise and what her

message is to children fighting to be heard today.

We’ve known each other for several years, but I’ve never

actually heard how you became involved in drafting the

convention. I was invited by Amnesty International to repre-

sent them at the United Nations in the drafting process. I was

only in my 20s.

What compelled you to say yes? When I was young, we

lived with my grandparents, who were refugees. My grand-

mother was a young child, one of 13 siblings, when she walked

across Europe from Lithuania to the English Channel. It was

in the days before aid agencies, mobile phones or instant

food. I never heard her talk about how hard this must have

been. Most of my Eastern European and Dutch family, includ-

ing young cousins, were murdered in the Holocaust. From the

age of 11, I wanted to be a human-rights lawyer to prevent the

same thing happening to other people.

When we first met, I told you that my children had a

summary of the convention on the wall of their school-

room but that I had explained to them that so far, the U.S.

hasn’t ratified it. America’s refusal to ratify is puzzling, as

the country was one of the leading drafters. It protects chil-

dren’s right to free speech and religious freedom, the found-

ing principles of the Bill of Rights. But it does a lot more. The

convention tells us to look at the child’s right to participate in

decisions affecting them through a child’s eyes and to provide

information in a format appropriate to a child. So it also helps

build an educated citizenship.

What difference does the lack of ratification make to

children in the U.S.? Because childhood was invisible to

the Founding Fathers, the Constitution makes no provision

for children. America was not alone in this, but other coun-

tries have added legal protection for the rights of children

by accepting the convention. It also provides a safety net,

which all children need to have in case their government

fails them.

Two American children, Carl Smith and Alexandria

Villa señor, have joined Greta Thunberg and children from

10 other countries in filing a complaint arguing that carbon

pollution violates their rights. Is this

an example of the convention at work?

Their petition concerns all children, and

generations yet unborn, so it is generous

and compassionate. Under what is known

as the Third Protocol, a treaty additional

to the main convention, children can pe-

tition the U.N. Committee [on the Rights

of the Child], but only after they have ex-

hausted all possible national remedies. In

other words, if America were party to it,

state and federal legislators and state and

federal courts would have opportunities

first to remedy the violation.

Could children apply the convention

to other areas? Absolutely. It’s a Bill of

Rights for children. The main aim of the

convention is to act as an early-warning

system, so that children and adults can

point out that any particular policy or

law, or lack of policy or law, has a detri-

mental impact on children—for instance,

social media and the right to privacy.

We’ve discussed the importance

of children’s being made aware of

their rights. What is your message

to them? The convention is for the

children of the world. Children partici-

pated in the drafting. American school-

children lobbied governments to per-

suade them to include the abolition of

the death penalty, and Canadian First

Nation children successfully called for

the protection of indigenous children’s

rights. Children can help other children

and prevent their rights being violated.

There is a disconnect between what
the U.N. convention says are funda-
mental rights for children and the
way governments pick and choose
which ones they will or will not up-
hold. How do we get to the point that
upholding children’s rights is seen
as an absolute responsibility? You are
right that there is often a disconnect be-
tween what children are entitled to and
what is happening to them, particularly
to child refugees and children caught up
in armed conflicts, situations for which
they are not responsible. What the con-
vention does is to provide an avenue for
children not to be targeted. But it re-
quires political will. The challenge is to
make children the central plank of our
CO policies. Childhood cannot wait. •

UR

TE

SY

G

ER

AL

DIN

E^ V

AN

BU

ER

EN