Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The UN Children’s Rights Convention and the Capabilities Approach – Family Duties and Children’s Rights in Tension

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Children’s Rights and the Capability Approach

Part of the book series: Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research ((CHIR,volume 8))

Abstract

The contribution critically assesses the role of the family and the state in the UNCRC. Focusing on those articles of the UNCRC which relate children’s rights to parent’s rights and duties it reconstructs the (implicit) normativity of the UNCRC towards the institution of the family and towards power relations within families. It is suggested that some of these normative foundations are not convincingly justified. Referring to the capabilities approach and feminist considerations on social justice the article argues that the strong family orientation of the UNCRC does not only bring forth a reduced approach to child welfare but also challenges expectations towards the UNCRC as catalyst of a participatory view on children as agentic subjects with rights.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “In addition to Article 28, the analysis also considers the drafting of Article 3 (best interest of the child), Article 5 (parental direction and guidance), Article 12 (right to express one’s opinion and to be heard), and Article 14 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion). After an initial reading of the material as a whole these articles were identified as those where conflicts between children’s rights and parents’ rights surfaced most clearly.” (Quennerstedt 2009: 169)

References

  • Andresen, S., Meiland, S., Milanovic, D., & Blume, J. (2013). Erfahrungen und Erleben von Armut aus der Sicht von Kindern. “Ich würde meiner Familie was schenken und dafür sorgen, dass sie nicht so viel in Schwierigkeiten sind”. Unserer Jugend, 3, 123–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andresen, S., Otto, H.-U., & Ziegler, H. (2008). Bildung as human development: An educational view on the capabilities approach. In H.-U. Otto & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Capabilities – Handlungsbefähigung und Verwirklichungschancen in der Erziehungswissenschaft (pp. 165–197). Wiesbaden: VS.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Archard, D., & Skivenes, M. (2009). Balancing a child’s best interest and a child’s view. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 17, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballet, J., Biggeri, M., & Comim, F. (2011). Children’s agency and the capability approach: A conceptual framework. In M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, & F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the capability approach (pp. 22–45). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartelheimer, P. (2009). Verwirklichungschancen als Maßstab lokaler Sozialpolitik? Sozialer Fortschritte, 2(3), 48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggeri, M., Ballet, J., & Comim, F. (2011). Children’s agency and the capability approach: A conceptual framework. In M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, & F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the capabilities approach (pp. 22–45). London: Palgrave.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bonvin, J.-M. (2009). Der Capability Ansatz und sein Beitrag für die Analyse gegenwärtiger Sozialpolitik. Soziale Passagen, 1, 8–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1979). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brumlik, M., & Keckeisen, W. (1976). Etwas fehlt. Zur Kritik und Bestimmung von Hilfsbedürftigkeit für die Sozialpädagogik. Kriminologisches Journal, 4, 241–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherney, I., & Perry, N. (1996). Children’s attitudes toward their rights: An international perspective. In E. Verhellen (Ed.), Monitoring children’s rights (pp. 241–250). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Z., & Eisenhuth, F. (2011). Beyond futurority – A capabilities perspective on childhood and youth. In O. Leßmann, H.-U. Otto, & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Closing the capabilities gap renegotiating social justice for the young (pp. 277–288). Opladen: Barabara Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Z. (2014). Agency, participation and youth inequalities. In C. Hart, M. Biggeri, & B. Babic (Eds.), Agency and participation in childhood and youth. International applications of the capabilities approach in schools and beyond (pp. 83–100). London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, T. (1998). Children and citizenship in Britain: A case for a socially interdependent model of citizenship. Childhood, 5, 99–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, T. (2001). Youth employment transitions and citizenship: A reflection on a local study of young people’s transition to employment in the North of England. Young, 9, 2–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, T. (2005). Children’s participation in social policy: Inclusion, chimera or authenticity? Social Policy and Society, 4, 109–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. A. (1993). Equality of what? On welfare, resources and capabilities. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 9–29). Oxford: Clarendon.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, G. (2010). Paternalism. In E. N. Zalta. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Summer 2010 edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/paternalism/.

  • Fraser, N. (2008). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (2010). Who counts as a subject of justice? National citizenry, global humanity, or transnational community of risk? In H. G. Soeffner et al. (Eds.), Unsichere Zeiten. Herausforderungen gesellschaftlicher Transformationen (pp. 717–733). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M. (1994). Whither children: Protection, participation, autonomy? Manitoba Law Journal, 22, 307–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, J., & Boyden, J. (2007). The statelessness of the world’s children. Children & Society, 21, 237–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. (2008). Youth, citizenship and the problem of dependence. In A. Invernizzi & J. Williams (Eds.), Children and citizenship (pp. 97–107). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittay, E. F. (1999). Love’s labor: Essays on women, equality, and dependency. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittay, E. F. (2011). The ethics of care, dependence, and disability. Ratio Juris, 24, 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lister, R. (1998). Citizenship and difference: Towards a differentiated universalism. European Journal of Social Theory, 1, 71–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lister, R. (2007a). From object to subject: Including marginalized citizens in policy making. Politics and Policy, 35, 437–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lister, R. (2007b). Why citizenship? where, when and how children? Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 8, 693–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lister, R., et al. (2003). Young people talk about citizenship: Empirical perspectives on theoretical and political debates. Citizenship Studies, 7, 235–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran-Ellis, J. (2013). Children as social actors, agency, and social competence. Neue Praxis, 4, 323–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munos, L. G. (2010). Childhood welfare and rights of children. In S. Andresen, I. Diehm, H.-U. Otto, & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Children and the good life new challenges for research on children (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development. The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 2(3), 33–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto, H. U., Scherr, A., & Ziegler, H. (2013). On the normative foundation of social welfare – Capabilities as a yardstick for critical social work. In H. U. Otto & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Enhancing capabilities: The role of social institutions (pp. 197–230). Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. (2001). Capability and freedom: A defence of Sen. Economics and Philosophy, 17, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. (2002). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, A. (2005). The moral significance of class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, A. (2009). Who’s afraid of critical social science? Current Sociology, 57, 767–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1980). Equality of what? In S. McMurrin (Ed.), Tanner lectures on human values (Vol. I, pp. 197–220). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, R. M. (2007). “Don’t forget about me”: Implementing article 12 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law, 24, 803–842.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, M., & Seifert, S. (2013). Creative capabilities and community capacity. In H. U. Otto & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Enhancing capabilities: The role of social institutions (pp. 117–134). Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoecklin, D. (2013). Theories of action in the field of child participation in search of explicit frameworks. Childhood: A Journal of Global Child Research, 4, 443–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sünker, H. (1995). Gewalt, Kinderrechte und Kinderpolitik. Widersprüche, 58, 77–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quennerstedt, A. (2009). Balancing the rights of the child and the rights of parents in the convention on the rights of the child. Journal of Human Rights, 8(2), 162–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quennerstedt, A. (2010). Children, but not really humans? Critical reflections on the hampering effect of the “3 p's”. International Journal of Children's Rights, 18, 619–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989, download: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx. 28 May 2014.

  • Van Bueren, G. (1998). The International Law on the rights of the child. Dordrecht: Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhellen, E. (1992). Het toezichtsinechanisme in de UNO-Conventie inzake de rechten van het kind. In T. de Boer et al. (Eds.), De kant van het kind. Liber Amicorum Prof. Miek de Langen (pp. 93–104). Arnhem: Gouda Quint.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhellen, E. (1993). Children and participation rights. In R. Heiliö, E. Lauronen, & M. Bardy (Eds.), Politics of childhood and children at risk. Provision – Protection – Participation (pp. 49–65). Vienna: European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Sciences, Institut for Social Pedagogy and Adult Education, Goethe University, Grüneburgplatz 1, Frankfurt am Main, D-60323, Germany

    Zoë Clark

  2. Faculty of Pedagogy, Centre for Social Service Studies, Bielefeld University, 10 01 31, 33501, Bielefeld, Germany

    Holger Ziegler

Authors
  1. Zoë Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Holger Ziegler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zoë Clark .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University Institute Kurt Bösch (IUKB), Sion, Switzerland

    Daniel Stoecklin

  2. Univ. of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Jean-Michel Bonvin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Clark, Z., Ziegler, H. (2014). The UN Children’s Rights Convention and the Capabilities Approach – Family Duties and Children’s Rights in Tension. In: Stoecklin, D., Bonvin, JM. (eds) Children’s Rights and the Capability Approach. Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9091-8_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation