The consequences of accession: the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption’s Impact on Children’s Rights

Abstract

Do states join human rights treaties if they know that non-compliance can have tangible consequences? We contend that states are less likely to accede to such treaties, especially if they have an outside option. We investigate this in the context of accession to the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (or: Hague Convention), which regulates the adoption of children across borders. We theorize that the incentive to join the treaty is structured by the salience of, and likelihood of participation in, intercountry adoption: states with larger orphan populations should prefer the outside option, whereas the presence and pressure children’s rights NGOs should prompt states to join the convention. We employ new data on the presence of children’s rights NGOs and a Cox proportional hazards technique. We find support for our propositions, with a caveat: states with large orphan populations initially prefer to the outside option, but become more likely to join the convention over time. This suggests that NGOs can influence states to join treaties that have consequences—especially if they assist with the development of administrative infrastructure that meets treaty requirements.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    The US is the only United Nations member to remain outside the CRC.

  2. 2.

    Additional states have acceded since 2012, bringing the total to 101 as of May 2019.

  3. 3.

    Whether the Hague Convention has successfully addressed the problems of intercountry adoption covering for or leading to kidnapping, stealing, or trafficking in children, and whether it adequately prevents agency representatives from pressuring birth parents to relinquish their child are matters of ongoing debate.

  4. 4.

    In addition, the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HccH 2008, 2015) offers technical assistance to help states meet the convention’s standards, as well as provides extensive guidance on good practices.

  5. 5.

    Ethiopia suspended adoptions to the US in 2017 and banned all adoptions by foreigners in 2018. It has not yet acceded to the Hague Convention. The suspension was a reaction to reports of the maltreatment of some Ethiopian children in their adoptive families (including a US couple convicted for killing a child), but also a consequence of allegations of trafficking in children and other suspect practices domestically (Igunza 2018; Joyce 2013).

  6. 6.

    Efrat et al. (2015) list 19 receiving countries and exclude Andorra, Cyprus, Luxembourg, and Malta, all of which receive only very small number of children. The group of 23 receiving countries correlates highly with the countries that were members of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) before the conclusion of the Hague Convention in 1993 (i.e. that were members before Mexico, Korea, and several former East bloc countries joined). The longstanding OECD members that are not receiving countries are Austria, Greece, Japan, Portugal, and Turkey. Almost all of these were sending countries at some point in the post-World War II era, but only Korea remained a sending country by 2012.

  7. 7.

    The HccH has instituted the Intercountry Adoption Technical Assistance Program (ICATAP) to aid countries that are interested in acceding but ‘are experiencing difficulties with implementation of the Convention’ (2008, Annex 2‒7).

  8. 8.

    Many thanks to Alexandra Westerbeek of UNICEF for pointing this out.

  9. 9.

    This source provides a well-referenced and more detailed classification of legal systems than the entries provided in the CIA’s World Fact Book.

  10. 10.

    We employ the proportion of women in parliament and the fertility rate, because these measures provide more consistent data across the range of countries and for the time period of our study (1990‒2012) than alternative measures. These measures generally correlate well with broader measures of gender (in)equality, but there are exceptions. For instance, Rwanda records one of the highest proportions of women in parliament (signifying higher gender equality), but also one of the highest fertility rates (signifying lower gender equality). By using the fertility rate as a robustness check and seeing that it does not change the results, we have greater confidence in our analyses.

  11. 11.

    Analysis using GNI/cap recoded into quartiles is not statistically significant in all models, but does show a larger substantive result (not shown).

  12. 12.

    Some authors have painted UNICEF as ‘anti-adoption’ on the basis of these activities, which tend to reduce the number of children available for intercountry adoption (Bartholet 2007; Poe 2014; Joyce 2013).

  13. 13.

    The Hague Conference on Private International Law is not an NGO, but NGOs play a role in persuading decision-makers to make use of the resources provided by ICATAP.

References

  1. Apodaca, Clair (2010) Child Hunger and Human Rights: International Governance, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ariès, Philippe (1962) Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life, New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bargach, Jamila (2002) Orphans of Islam: Family, Abandonment, and Secret Adoption in Morocco, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bartholet, Elizabeth (2011) ‘Ratification by the United States of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Pros and Cons from a Child’s Rights Perspective’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 633: 80‒101.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bartholet, Elizabeth (2010) ‘International Adoption: The Human Rights Position’, Global Policy 1(1): 91‒100.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bartholet, Elizabeth (2007) ‘Slamming the Door on Adoption’, Washington Post, 4 November, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201782.html (last accessed on 21 August, 2013).

  7. Bartholet, Elizabeth (2005) ‘International Adoption’, in Lori Askeland, ed., Children and Youth in Adoption, Orphanages and Foster Care, 63‒68, Westport, CT: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Boli-Bennett, John, and John W. Meyer (1978) ‘The Ideology of Childhood and the State: Rules Distinguishing Children in National Constitutions, 1870‒1970’, American Sociological Review 43(6): 797‒812.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M. and Bradford S. Jones (2004) Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Dan Reiter and Christopher Zorn (2003) ‘Nonproportional Hazards and Event History Analysis in International Relations’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 47(1): 33‒53.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Breuning, Marijke (2013a) ‘Samaritans, Family Builders, and the Politics of Intercountry Adoption’, International Studies Perspectives 14(4): 417‒35.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Breuning, Marijke (2013b) ‘What Explains Openness to Intercountry Adoption?’, Social Science Quarterly 94(1): 113‒30.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Breuning, Marijke and John Ishiyama (2009) ‘The Politics of Intercountry Adoption: Explaining Variation in the Legal Requirements of Sub-Saharan African Countries’. Perspectives on Politics 7(1): 89‒101.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Breuning, Marijke and Anna Pechenina (2019) ‘Role Dissonance in Foreign Policy: Russia, Power, and Intercountry Adoption’, Foreign Policy Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orz004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Caprioli, Mary (2004) ‘Democracy and Human Rights Versus Women’s Security: A Contradiction?’, Security Dialogue 35: 411‒28.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Carlson, Richard (2010/2011) ‘Seeking the Better Interests of Children with a New International Law of Adoption’, New York Law School Law Review 55(3): 733–79.

  17. Chayes, Abram and Antonia Handler Chayes (1993) ‘On Compliance’, International Organization 47(2): 175‒205.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Csaky, Corinna (2009) Keeping Children Out of Harmful Institutions: Why We Should Be Investing in Family-Based Care, London: Save the Children.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dubinsky, Karen (2007) ‘Babies without Borders: Rescue, Kidnap, and the Symbolic Child’, Journal of Women’s History 19(1): 142‒50.

    Google Scholar 

  20. deMause, Lloyd, ed. (1975) The History of Childhood, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Efrat, Asif, David Leblang, Steven Liao and Sonal Pandya (2015) Babies across Borders: The Political Economy of International Child Adoption’, International Studies Quarterly 59(3): 615–28.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fogg-Davis, Hawley (2002) The Ethics of Transracial Adoption, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gibbons, Judith L. (2017) ‘Human Trafficking and Intercountry Adoption’, Women & Therapy 40(1‒2): 170‒89.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Graff, E. J. (2010) ‘The Baby Business’, Democracy 15(Summer): 27‒40.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Graff, E.J. (2008) ‘The Lie We Love’, Foreign Policy 169(Nov/Dec): 59‒66.

  26. Hafner-Burton, Emilie and Kiyoteru Tsutsui (2007) ‘Justice Lost! The Failure of International Human Rights Law to Matter Where Needed Most’, Journal of Peace Research 44(4): 407‒25.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hafner-Burton, Emilie and Kiyoteru Tsutsui (2005) ‘Human Rights in a Globalizing World: The Paradox of Empty Promises’, American Journal of Sociology 110(5): 1373‒411.

    Google Scholar 

  28. HccH (Hague Conference on Private International Law) (2015) Intercountry Adoption Homepage, available at https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/specialised-sections/intercountry-adoption (last accessed on 19 December, 2015).

  29. HccH (2012) Accreditation and Adoption Accredited Bodies: General Principles and Guide To Good Practice, Guide No. 2, Bristol: Family Law/The Hague: HccH.

  30. HccH (2009) The Intercountry Adoption Technical Assistance Programme, available at https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/specialised-sections/intercountry-adoption (last accessed on 31 January, 2016).

  31. HccH (2008) The Implementation and Operation of the 1993 Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention: Guide to Good Practice 1, Bristol: Family Law/The Hague: HccH.

  32. HccH (n.d.) Status Table: Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, available at https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=69 (last accessed on 6 June, 2017).

  33. Haslanger, Sally and Charlotte Witt (2005) ‘Introduction: Kith, Kin, and Family’, in Sally Haslanger and Charlotte Witt, eds, Adoption Matters: Philosophical and Feminist Essays, 1-18, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hathaway, Oona A. (2002) ‘Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?’, Yale Law Journal 111(8): 1935‒2042.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hearst, Alice (2012) Children and the Politics of Cultural Belonging, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hess, Julia Meredith, and Dianna Shandy (2008) ‘Kids at the Crossroads: Global Childhood and the State’, Anthropological Quarterly 81(4): 765‒76.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hollingsworth, Leslie Doty (2003) ‘International Adoption among Families in the United States: Considerations of Social Justice’, Social Work 48(2): 209‒17.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Igunza, Emmanuel (2018) ‘What’s Next for Ethiopia’s Orphans? Ethiopia Bans Foreign Adoptions’, BBC, 10 January, available at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-42635641 (last accessed on 10 January, 2018).

  39. Joyce, Kathryn (2013) The Child Catchers Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption, New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kapstein, Ethan B. (2003) ‘The Baby Trade’, Foreign Affairs 82(6): 115‒25.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kim, Dongwook (2013) ‘International Nongovernmental Organizations and the Global Diffusion of National Human Rights Institutions’, International Organization 67(3): 505‒39.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Koch, Michael T. and Sarah A. Fulton (2011) ‘In the Defense of Women: Gender, Office Holding, and National Security Policy in Established Democracies’, Journal of Politics 73(1): 1‒16.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Landman, Todd (2006) Studying Human Rights, London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lu, Kelan and Marijke Breuning (2014) ‘Gender and Generosity: Does Women’s Representation Affect Development Cooperation?’, Politics, Groups, and Identities 2(3): 313‒30.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Marre, Diana and Laura Briggs (2009) International Adoption: Global Inequalities and the Circulation of Children, New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. McBride, Becca (2016) The Globalization of Adoption: Individuals, States, and Agencies Across Borders, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Menozzi, Clare and Barry Mirkin (2007) ‘Child Adoption: Path to Parenthood?’ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, 29‒31 March, New York.

  48. Murdie, Amanda and Tavishi Bhasin (2011) ‘Aiding and Abetting: Human Rights INGOs and Domestic Protest’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 55(2): 163‒91.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Murdie, Amanda and David R. Davis (2012) ‘Shaming and Blaming: Using Events Data to Assess the Impact of Human Rights INGO’, International Studies Quarterly 56: 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Neumayer, Eric (2005) ‘Do International Human Rights Treaties Improve Respect for Human Rights?’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 49(6): 925‒52.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Poe, Andrea (2014) ‘Why I Won’t Buy UNICEF Holiday Cards’, Washington Times, 31 December, available at https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/31/why-i-wont-buy-u/ (last accessed on 31 December, 2014).

  52. Posner, Eric A. (2014) The Twilight of Human Rights Law, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Roby, Jini L. and Jim Ife (2009) ‘Human Rights, Politics and Intercountry Adoption: An Examination of Two Sending Countries’, International Social Work 52: 661‒71.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Roby, Jini L. and Stephanie Matsumura (2002) ‘If I Give You My Child, Aren’t We Family? A Study of Birthmothers Participating in Marshall Islands-U.S. Adoptions’, Adoption Quarterly 5(4): 7‒31.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Roby, Jini L. and Stacey A. Shaw (2006) ‘The African Orphan Crisis and International Adoption’, Social Work 51(3): 199–210.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ron, James, Howard Ramos and Kathleen Rodgers (2005) ‘Transnational Information Politics: NGO Human Rights Reporting, 1986–2000’, International Studies Quarterly 49(3): 557‒87.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Rotabi, Karen Smith, and Judith L. Gibbons (2012) ‘Does the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption Adequately Protect Orphaned and Vulnerable Children and Their Families?’, Journal of Child and Family Studies 21: 106–19.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Schmit, Annette (2008) ‘The Hague Convention: The Problems with Accession and Implementation’, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 15(1): 375‒95.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Selman, Peter (2012) ‘Global Trends in Intercountry Adoption: 2001‒2010’, Adoption Advocate 44: 1‒17.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Selman, Peter (2009) ‘The Rise and Fall of Intercountry Adoption in the 21st Century’, International Social Work 52: 575–94.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Simmons, Beth A. (2009) Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Smolin, David M. (2005) ‘Child Laundering: How the Intercountry Adoption System Legitimizes and Incentivizes the Practices of Buying, Trafficking, Kidnapping, and Stealing Children’, BEPress Legal Series, paper 749.

  63. Stearns, Peter N. (2011) Childhood in World History, second edition, New York: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Tsutsui, Kiyoteru, and Christine Min Wotipka (2005) ‘Global Civil Society and the International Human Rights Movement: Citizen Participation in Human Rights International Nongovernmental Organizations’, Social Forces 83: 587‒620.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Union of International Associations (various years) Yearbook of International Organizations, München: KG Saur Verlag.

  66. UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) (2013) Briefing Note: Alternative Childcare. UNICEF Ethiopia Country Office, Thematic Briefing Note, April 2013.

  67. UNICEF (2012a) Orphans, available at http://www.unicef.org/media/media_45279.html (last accessed on 25 August, 2013).

  68. UNICEF (2012b) UNICEF’s Position on Intercountry Adoption, available at http://www.unicef.org/media/media_41918.html (last accessed on 25 August, 2013).

  69. UNICEF (2004‒2014) State of the World’s Children, New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.

  70. UNICEF (2004) Children on the Brink: A Joint Report of New Orphan Estimates and a Framework for Action, New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  71. UNICEF (2002) Children on the Brink: A Joint Report on Orphan Estimates and Program Strategies, New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  72. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2009) Child Adoption: Trends and Policies, New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  73. UN-OHCHR (United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) (1996) Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx (last accessed on 23 August, 2013).

  74. US Department of State (n.d.) Hague vs Non-Hague Adoption Process, available at https://travel.state.gov/content/adoptionsabroad/en/hague-convention/hague-vs-non-hague-adoption-process.html (last accessed on 18 May, 2016).

  75. Van Loon, J. H. A. (1990) Report on Intercountry Adoption, The Hague: Hague Conference on Private International Law.

  76. Varnis, Steven L. (2001) ‘Promoting Child Protection through Community Resources: Care Arrangements for Ethiopian AIDS Orphans’, Northeast African Studies 8(1): 143‒58.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Wall, John (2017) Children’s Rights: Today’s Global Challenge, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Wikipedia (2015) ‘Application of Sharia Law by Country’, available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country (last accessed on 29 June, 2015).

  79. World Bank (2015) World Development Indicators (5 February).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the University of North Texas for financial support for this study. We also thank Christine Balarezo, Melissa Martinez, and Amalia Pulido for their assistance with coding the NGO data, and Michael Greig and Jacqueline DeMeritt for sharing their expertise on event history modelling and graphics.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marijke Breuning.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 45 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Breuning, M., Xi, J. The consequences of accession: the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption’s Impact on Children’s Rights. J Int Relat Dev 24, 77–100 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-019-00183-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Human rights
  • Children’s rights
  • Intercountry adoption
  • Orphans
  • Non-governmental organizations
  • NGOs
  • Compliance
  • Accession