Advertisement

Introduction

  • Jean-Michel BonvinEmail author
  • Daniel Stoecklin
Chapter
Part of the Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research book series (CHIR, volume 8)

Abstract

Children’s rights have hardly been analysed in terms of the capability approach (CA), which was developed by Amartya Sen (1999) and Martha Nussbaum (2000), and many other scholars. This book is among the first attempts to bridge the two, and it appears after a few contributions to this endeavour (Biggeri et al. 2010, 2011; Dixon and Nussbaum 2012). Children’s rights and the capability approach are not of the same nature: children’s rights are a social reality and the capability approach is a perspective to reflect on it. The capability approach is a way to operationalize formal freedoms (entitlements), and hence children’s rights. The challenges of applying a capability approach to children's rights include, notably, to go beyond the pitfalls of the new social studies of childhood. The contributions to this book are briefly presented. They highlight important issues that have to be taken into account to approach children's rights in new ways.

Keywords

Human Dignity Capability Approach Street Child Life Cycle Perspective Child Participation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alanen, L. (2011). Critical childhood studies? Childhood, 18(2), 147–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aptekar, L., & Stoecklin, D. (2014). Street children and homeless youth: A cross-cultural perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archard, D. (2004). Children, rights and childhood. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Biggeri, M., Ballet, J., & Comim, F. (2010). The capability approach and research on children: Capability approach and children’ issues. In S. Andresen et al. (Eds.), Children and the good life: New challenges for research on children (pp. 75–89). Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Biggeri, M., Ballet, J., & Comim, F. (2011). Children and the capability approach. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brighouse, H. (2002). What rights (if any) do children have? In D. Archard & C. M. Macleod (Eds.), The moral and political status of children (pp. 31–52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corsaro, W. (1997). The sociology of childhood. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Lexington: Heath & Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dixon, R., & Nussbaum, M. C. (2012). Children’s rights and a capabilities approach: The question of special priority. The Law School. The University of Chicago. Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 384, vol. 97, pp 547–594Google Scholar
  10. Freeman, M. (2007). Why it remains important to take children’s rights seriously. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 12, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gasper, D. (2003). Nussbaum’s capabilities approach in perspective: purposes, methods and sources for an ethics of human development, Institute of Social Studies, Working Paper Series No. 379, The Hague, The Netherlands. http://repub.eur.nl/pub/19137). Accessed 11 Dec 2013
  12. Hartas, D. (2008). The right to childhoods: Critical perspectives on rights, difference and knowledge in a transient world. London, New-York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  13. James, W. (1910). Philosophie de l’expérience. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  14. James, A., & Prout, A. (1990). Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. Basingstoke: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  15. James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing childhood. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Matthews, H. (2003). Children and regeneration: Setting an agenda for community participation and integration. Children and Society, 17(4), 264–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development. The capabilities approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities. The human development approach. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Qvortrup, J., Bardy, M., Sgritta, G., & Wintersberger, H. (1994). Childhood matters. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Poretti, M., Hanson, K., Darbellay, F., & Berchtold, A. (2014). The rise and fall of icons of ‘stolen childhood’ since the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Childhood, 21(1), 22–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 30–53). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
  24. Sen, A. (2002). Rationality and freedom. London/Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. London/Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Sirota, R. (2006). Eléments pour une sociologie de l’enfance. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
  27. Stoecklin, D. (2013). Theories of action in the field of child participation. In search of explicit frameworks. Childhood, 20(4), 443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stoecklin, D. (2014). Transformation of children’s lives through their rights. A new approach to agency. In L. Chisholm & K. Deliyanni-Kouimtzi (Eds.), Changing landscapes of childhood and youth in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. UNCRC. (1989). UN convention on the right of the child. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  30. Veerman, P. E. (1992). Towards a more integrated basis for the children’s rights movement: The aims and outcome of the first International Interdisciplinary Study-Group on Ideologies of Children’s Rights’. In M. Freeman & P. E. Veerman (Eds.), The ideologies of children’s rights (pp. 357–63). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  31. Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society (1921). New York: Bedminster Press.Google Scholar
  32. Weber, M. (1992a). L’objectivité de la connaissance dans les sciences et la politique sociales (1904). In J. Freund (Ed.), Essais sur la théorie de la science. Paris: Plon, Pocket (Collection Agora).Google Scholar
  33. Weber, M. (1992b). Essai sur le sens de la “neutralité axiologique” dans les sciences sociologiques et économiques (1917). In J. Freund (Ed.), Essais sur la théorie de la science. Paris: Plon, Pocket (Collection Agora).Google Scholar
  34. Zermatten, J., & Stoecklin, D. (2009). Le droit des enfants de participer. Norme juridique et réalité pratique: contribution à un nouveau contrat social. Sion: IUKB/IDE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ecole d’études sociales et pédagogiques (EESP)University of Applied Sciences Western SwitzerlandLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Children’s Rights UnitUniversity Institute Kurt BöschSion 4Switzerland

Personalised recommendations