The best of both worlds for children's rights? Interpreting the European convention on human rights in the light of the UN convention on the rights of the child

Human Rights Quarterly

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 308-326

  Kilkelly, Ursula ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040154754     PISSN: 02750392     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/hrq.2001.0019     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Ireland is the only Convention State which has failed to incorporate the Convention into its domestic law in some form. This is expected to take place in 2001.
2. See URSULA KILKELLY, THE CHILD AND THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (1999).
3. See id. at 6-16.
4. Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted 20 Nov. 1989, G.A. Res. 44/25, U.N. GAOR, 44th Sess., Supp. No. 49, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989) (entered into force 2 Sept. 1990), reprinted in 28 I.L.M. 1448 (1989).
5. For reference to these criticisms and others, see David A. Ballon, The Convention on the Rights of the Child: Prospects for International Enforcement, 12 HUM. RTS. Q. 120 (1990).
6. See, e.g., Ursula Kilkelly, The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: An Evaluation in the Light of Recent UK Experience, 8 CFLQ 105 (1996); Ursula Kilkelly, In the best interests of the child? An evaluation of Ireland's performance before the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 19 IRISH L. TIMES 293 (1998).
7. See, e.g., Ursula Kilkelly, The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: An Evaluation in the Light of Recent UK Experience, 8 CFLQ 105 (1996); Ursula Kilkelly, In the best interests of the child? An evaluation of Ireland's performance before the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 19 IRISH L. TIMES 293 (1998).
8. In Ireland, for example, the Government is committed to establishing an office of Ombudsman for Children and has already drawn up a national children's strategy, and raised the age of criminal responsibility to twelve years. While domestic pressures played a significant part in securing these changes, the changes were strongly recommended by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Ireland, U.N. Comm. on the Rts. of the Child, 17th Sess., 453d mtg., U.N. Doc CRC/C/15/Add.85 (1998).
9. One hundred ninety-one states have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United States of America signed the Convention in 1995, but neither it nor Somalia has ratified it.
10. See, e.g., TERESA GERAGHTY, GETTING IT RIGHT? THE STATE OF CHILDREN'S RIGHTS IN NORTHERN IRELAND AT THE END OF THE 20TH CENTURY (1999).
11. See, e.g., Dominic McColdrick, The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 5 INT'L J. L. & FAMILY 132 (1991).
12. See UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, supra note 4, arts. 37 & 40.
13. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, supra note 4. These rights are contained in Articles 28 and 29, 27 and 24, and 30 respectively.
14. Note, for example, the similarity between article 40 of the Children's Convention, id. and article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 Dec. 1966, G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. No. 16, art. 14, U.N. Doc. A/ 6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force 23 Mar. 1976)). There are also similarities between Article 28 of the CRC and Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 16 Dec. 1966, G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. No. 16, art. 13, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force 3 Jan. 1976)).
15. See UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, supra note 4, arts. 7 & 8.
16. See id., particularly article 20 concerning children deprived of a family environment. Article 22 concerning refugee children, and article 23 concerning children with disabilities.
17. Id. art. 13.
18. Id. arts. 37 & 40.
19. Id. art. 12.
20. Id. arts. 2 & 3.
21. See Also KILKELLY, supra note 2, at 2-4.
22. See Bouamar v. Belgium, 129 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1988); see also KILKELLY, supra note 2, at 42-46 on the interpretation of the provision.
23. Protocol 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 20 Mar. 1952 (entered into force 18 May 1954).
24. See also KILKELLY, supra note 2, at 62-87.
25. Protocol 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 22 Nov. 1984 (entered into force 1 Nov. 1988).
26. Id.
27. X. and Y. v. The Netherlands, 91 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1985).
28. Lopez Ostra v. Spain, 303 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1994).
29. Petrovic v. Austria, 67 Reports Eur. Ct. H.R. (1998-II).
30. The Court established this approach at an early stage. See Tyrer v. UK, 26 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1978).
31. See also Nicholas Lavender, The Problem ot the Margin of Appreciation, 4 EUR. HUM. RTS. L. REV. 380 (1997).
32. X., Y., and Z. v. UK, 35 Eur. Ct. H.R. Reports 1997-II no. 35, 619.
33. The interpretation of the Convention should not be so dynamic as to lead to the creation of new rights, which would cause States to question the legitimacy of the Convention system. See MATTI PELLONPÄÄ, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in THE EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 855, 867 (1993).
34. See KILKELLY, supra note 2, at 4-6.
35. Marckx v. Belgium, 31 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1979).
36. European Convention on the Legal Status of Children Born Out of Wedlock, opened for signature 15 Oct. 1975, Europ.T.S. No. 85 (entered into force 13 Aug. 1978).
37. For criticism of the Court's approach, see J.S. Davidson, The European Convention on Human Rights and the "Illegitimate" Child, in CHILDREN AND THE LAW: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF PROFESSOR HK BEVAN 75, 94-97 (David Freestone ed., 1990).
38. In X. v. UK, 7626/76, Comm. Dec. 11 Dec 1977, DR 11, at 160 and Inze v. Austria, 126 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1987), the Commission and Court referred expressly to provisions Eur. Convention on Adoption, E.T.S. No. 58.
39. In Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen & Pedersen v. Denmark, App. Nos. 5095/71, 5920/72, and 5926/72, Comm. Rep., 21.3.1975 (unpublished), ¶ 153, the Commission referred to the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination, 1960, U.N.T.S. vol. 429, at 93, and also the Declaration on the Rights of the Child, 1959.
40. Marckx v. Belgium, 31 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1979).
41. Keegan v. Ireland, 290 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1994).
42. Id. ¶ 50.
43. Costello-Roberts v. UK, 247 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1993). See also KILKELLY, supra note 2, at 160-70.
44. Costello-Roberts v. UK, 247 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1993). See also KILKELLY, supra note 2, at 160-70.
45. A. v. UK, App. No. 25599/94, Comm. Rep., 18.9.97, EUR. Ct. H.R. Reports 1998-VI no. 90, 2703. See also T. v. UK, App. No. 24724/94 Comm. Rep., and V. v. UK, App. No. 24888/94, Comm. Rep., 4.12.98 (unreported).
46. A. v. UK, App. No. 25599/94, Comm. Rep., 18.9.97, Eur. Ct. H.R. Reports 1998-VI no. 90, 2703.
47. Id.
48. Id. ¶ 50.
49. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, U.M. Comm. on the Rts. of the Child, 8th Sess., 208th mtg., U.N. Doc CRC/C/15/Add.34 § 16 (1995). See also Kilkelly, supra note 6 at 114-15.
50. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, U.M. Comm. on the Rts. of the Child, 8th Sess., 208th mtg., U.N. Doc CRC/C/15/Add.34 § 16 (1995). See also Kilkelly, supra note 6 at 114-15.
51. A. v. UK, Eur. Ct. H.R. Reports 1998-VI no. 90, 2703 (judgment of 23 Sept. 1998).
52. Id. ¶ 21.
53. Z. and Others v. UK, App. No. 29392/95, Comm. Rep. of 10 Sept. 1999. Despite being abolished formally in 1998 when Protocol 11 to the Convention came into force, the Commission continued for a further year until its case work was completed.
54. Airey v. Ireland, 32 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1979). See also P.VAN DIJK AM) G.J.H. VAN HOOF, THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 418-28 (3d ed. 1998).
55. Airey v. Ireland, 32 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1979). See also P.VAN DIJK AM) G.J.H. VAN HOOF, THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 418-28 (3d ed. 1998).
56. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, supra note 4, art. 40 § 1; see also Deirdre Fottrell, Bringing Rights All the Way Home: Some Issues of Law and Policy in International Law, in YOUTH JUSTICE: THEORY AND PRACTICE 99-110 (Jane Pickford ed., 2000).
57. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, supra note 4, art. 40 § 1; see also Deirdre Fottrell, Bringing Rights All the Way Home: Some Issues of Law and Policy in International Law, in YOUTH JUSTICE: THEORY AND PRACTICE 99-110 (Jane Pickford ed., 2000).
58. Nortier v. the Netherlands, App. No. 13924/88 Comm. Rep., 9.7.92 (unpublished); Nortier v. the Netherlands, 267 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1993).
59. See the dissenting opinion of Mr. Trechsel, joined by Mr. Schermers, Mr. Frowein, and Sir Basil Hall, Com. Rep., and the dissenting opinion of Judge Morenilla, in Nortier v. the Netherlands, 267 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1993).
60. Id. at 18.
61. Id. ¶ 2.
62. Id.
63. See V. v. UK, App. No. 24888/94, Comm. Rep., 4.12.98 (unreported) ¶¶ 98-108.
64. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted 16 Dec. 1966, G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. No. 16, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force 3 Jan. 1976).
65. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice ("The Beijing Rules") G.A. Res. 40/33, 40 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 53 at 207, U.N. Doc. A/40/ 53 (1985).
66. T. and V. v. UK, judgments of 16 Dec. 1999. Slight variations occur in the judgments. Reference will hitherto be made to the judgment in the V case. See also Eric D. Sentlinger, Comment: V v. United Kingdom, Is It a 'New Deal' for Prosecuting Children as Adults? 16 CONN. J. INT'L L. 117 (2000); Ursula Kilkelly, The Human Rights Act 1998: Implications for the Detention and Trial of Young People, 51 N. IR. LEGAL Q. 466 (2000).
67. T. and V. v. UK, judgments of 16 Dec. 1999. Slight variations occur in the judgments. Reference will hitherto be made to the judgment in the V case. See also Eric D. Sentlinger, Comment: V v. United Kingdom, Is It a 'New Deal' for Prosecuting Children as Adults? 16 CONN. J. INT'L L. 117 (2000); Ursula Kilkelly, The Human Rights Act 1998: Implications for the Detention and Trial of Young People, 51 N. IR. LEGAL Q. 466 (2000).
68. T. and V. v. UK, judgments of 16 Dec. 1999. Slight variations occur in the judgments. Reference will hitherto be made to the judgment in the V case. See also Eric D. Sentlinger, Comment: V v. United Kingdom, Is It a 'New Deal' for Prosecuting Children as Adults? 16 CONN. J. INT'L L. 117 (2000); Ursula Kilkelly, The Human Rights Act 1998: Implications for the Detention and Trial of Young People, 51 N. IR. LEGAL Q. 466 (2000).
69. V. v. UK, Eur. Ct. H.R., ¶ 86.
70. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Recommendation no. R (87) 20, id. ¶ 87.
71. Id. ¶ 90.
72. Id. The Court reached this conclusion by a majority of sixteen votes to one.
73. Rule 4 invites states not to fix the age of criminal responsibility too low.
74. V. v. UK, Eur. Ct. H.R., ¶¶ 62-74. Judges Pastor Ridruejo, Ress, Makarczyk, Tulkens, and Butkevych disagreed with the Court and found that the combination of (i) treating children of ten years of age as criminally responsible, (ii) prosecuting them at the age of eleven in an adult court, and (iii) subjecting them to an indeterminate sentence, reached a substantial level of mental and physical suffering, which violated Article 3. In particular, they noted that only four Contracting States out of forty-one are prepared to find criminal responsibility at an age as low as, or lower than, that applicable in England and Wales and had little trouble concluding that the existing standard amongst the member States of the Council of Europe was to find juveniles criminally responsible from the age of thirteen or fourteen.
75. Id. ¶¶ 62-80.
76. Id. ¶¶ 93-101.
77. V. v. UK, App. No. 24888/94, Comm. Rep., 4.12.98 (unreported) ¶ 100.
78. See, e.g., Olsson v. Sweden, 130 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1988); Andersson v. Sweden, 226 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1992) and Johansen v. Norway, 1996 Eur. Ct. H.R., Reports 1996-III no. 12, 979; K. and T. v. Finland, 200 Eur. Ct. H.R. (unreported); see generally, KILKELLY, supra note 2, at 263-94.
79. See, e.g., Olsson v. Sweden, 130 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1988); Andersson v. Sweden, 226 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1992) and Johansen v. Norway, 1996 Eur. Ct. H.R., Reports 1996-III no. 12, 979; K. and T. v. Finland, 200 Eur. Ct. H.R. (unreported); see generally, KILKELLY, supra note 2, at 263-94.
80. See id.
81. See W. v. UK, 121 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1987); McMichael v. UK, 308 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1995).
82. Airey v. Ireland, 32 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1979).
83. Id; on ECHR case law on the child's right to identity, see also KILKELLY supra note 2, at 88-115.
84. X., Y., and Z. v. UK, Eur. Ct. H.R. Reports 1997-II no. 35, 619 (judgment of 22 Apr. 1997).
85. In particular, the Committee has found that total anonymity in such procedures, which prevented the child from obtaining vital birth information would be contrary to the Convention. See Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: France, Comm. on the Rts. of the Child, 6th. Sess., 156th Meeting, 22 April 1994, U.N. Doc CRC/C/15.Add.20.