The Geography of International Law & Children's Rights - Global Standards vs. Local Resistance

Professor Andrea Hagan

Hello and welcome back to "Let's Talk About Juvenile Delinquency," your weekly lecture provided by your host, Professor A. This is Week 6, and we are diving headfirst into a topic that bridges the local and the global: "The Geography of International Law & Children's Rights, Global Standards vs. Local Resistance." This week, we’re tackling some big questions. We'll be analyzing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, or UNCRC, as the benchmark for global standards. We will also critically evaluate why the United States remains the only UN member state that has not ratified this treaty, looking specifically at our unique "American legal geography". And most importantly, we'll be looking at resistance. We'll assess how the very idea of national sovereignty creates pushback against global norms. To make this real, we're going to compare how different countries, including our own and even our home state of Louisiana, are implementing or actively resisting these international standards right now.

Professor Andrea Hagan

So, let's start with the big one: The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, or UNCRC. Adopted in 1989, this treaty is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in history. As of today, 196 countries are party to it. The only UN member state that has not ratified it is... the United States. The UNCRC is a comprehensive document that shifts the perspective from viewing children as mere objects of charity to seeing them as human beings with their own distinct set of rights.

Professor Andrea Hagan

The convention is built on a few core principles, which you'll recognize from your summary reading: Article 2: Non-discrimination. Article 3: The best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in all actions concerning them. Article 6: The right to life, survival, and development. Article 12: The right of the child to express their views freely in all matters affecting them, and for those views to be given due weight. It covers everything from the right to education and health to protection from economic exploitation, violence, and abuse. It even addresses juvenile justice explicitly, stating in Article 37 that no child shall be subjected to torture, cruel or degrading treatment, or capital punishment, and that detention should be a "last resort and for the shortest time possible".

Professor Andrea Hagan

This treaty is, in essence, the world's attempt to create a single, legally-binding set of standards for childhood. Which makes me pause for a moment and think - Through my studies in history and now criminology, I have found that many policies are idealistic but not realistic. This is another moment where everything looks great on paper. Still, the question remains whether all parties involved are willing to set aside their egos and personal agendas to ensure that the written plan is also put into practice. It's kinda like my grandmaw use to say, "Jus' cause it looks good on paper, don't mean everybody gon' be willin' to do it." My mawmaw was right. Throughout my life, I have witnessed this on several occasions, personally and professionally.

Professor Andrea Hagan

This brings us to the elephant in the room: Why not the U.S.? Why has the U.S. signed the treaty—which it did in 1995—but never ratified it? We seem to have this issue alot in our country, whereas we speak on actions that need to be taken, we promise to do something about problems that continuously plague our country, we draw up legal documents that collect dust over the years. Why? Why does this keep happening? The answer is a perfect illustration of our theme: "Global Standards vs. Local Resistance." The resistance here is deeply embedded in American legal and political culture—what is called "American legal geography". Your readings for this week pinpoint the two major barriers. First, Parental Rights.

Professor Andrea Hagan

As the 2023 article "Why the USA should ratify..." notes, there is a powerful, politically-based perception in the U.S. that "if you extend rights to children, you deny the rights of parents". There's a deep-seated fear that the UNCRC would allow the government or an international body to interfere with a parent's right to raise, educate, and discipline their children. We don't have to look far to see this in action. Right here in Louisiana, the legislature has been actively expanding the "Parents' Bill of Rights." A 2024 senate bill, for example, aims to expand these rights to include a parent's right to protect their child from being taught that they are "currently or destined to be oppressed or to be an oppressor based on the child's race or national origin" (Legislature of Louisiana, 2024). This is a direct legislative pushback against certain educational curricula, framed entirely through the lens of parental control over education which is a core value in our local legal geography that conflicts with the UNCRC's articles on the goals of education (Article 29) and a child's right to access information (Article 13).

Professor Andrea Hagan

The second barrier is National Sovereignty and Federalism. Critics argue that ratifying the UNCRC would cede American sovereignty to a UN committee. Because the treaty covers issues like education, health, and juvenile justice, which are traditionally handled at the state level, there's a huge states' rights argument. The fear is that a ratified treaty would supersede state and local laws, effectively gutting the principle of federalism.

Professor Andrea Hagan

This concept of "local resistance" isn't just theoretical; it has massive, real-world consequences for children. And Louisiana provides some of the starkest, most current examples in the entire country. Let's look at Juvenile Justice. The UNCRC and its optional protocols strongly advocate for rehabilitation and treating children as children. Yet, in 2024, Louisiana became the first and only state in the nation to reverse its "Raise the Age" law (Bolts, 2024). This new law mandates that all 17-year-olds, regardless of their offense, be charged and incarcerated as adults (Bolts, 2024).

Professor Andrea Hagan

The data shows the impact: in the first five months under this new law, nearly 70% of the 17-year-olds arrested in the state's three largest parishes were charged with nonviolent crimes (Bolts, 2024). Because federal law requires "sight and sound" separation of minors from adults in prison, these 17-year-olds are often held in conditions tantamount to solitary confinement or are shipped to facilities hundreds of miles from their families, many of which are already facing allegations of neglect and abuse (Bolts, 2024). This is a profound and direct rejection of the UNCRC's core principles on juvenile justice.

Professor Andrea Hagan

Now let's look at Child Labor. Article 32 of the UNCRC explicitly states that governments must protect children from "economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education" and must "Provide for appropriate regulation of the hours and conditions of employment." What did Louisiana do in 2024? The legislature passed, and the governor signed, a bill that repeals the requirement for meal and break periods for 16- and 17-year-old workers (HR Works, 2024). A minor under 16 must get a 30-minute break after five hours, but a 17-year-old working an eight-hour shift or longer is now legally entitled to no breaks at all (Vensure, 2024).

Professor Andrea Hagan

This is a clear rollback of protections, moving in the exact opposite direction of the global standard set by the UNCRC. If we are not careful, we will slowly but surely turn back the clock to early 20th-century practices. These Louisiana examples are the very definition of "local resistance." They demonstrate a clear political and legal choice to prioritize different values—in this case, a "tough on crime" posture and deregulation—over the internationally-agreed-upon "best interests of the child."

Professor Andrea Hagan

So, what about countries that have ratified the treaty? Does that mean it's smooth sailing? This is where this week's Learning Objective 4 comes in: comparing implementation and resistance. Let's look at the United Kingdom. The UK ratified the UNCRC back in 1991 (gov.scot, 2024). But ratification is not the end of the story. Member states must periodically report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which then issues "Concluding Observations." In June 2023, the UN Committee released its report on the UK, and it was scathing. The Committee expressed "deep concern" about the "large number of children living in poverty, food insecurity, and homelessness" in the UK (Just Fair, 2023). It highlighted ongoing, significant discrimination, particularly against LGBTQ+ children and children from minority backgrounds, who face disproportionately high rates of school exclusion and negative police interaction (Just Fair, 2023; Just for Kids Law, 2023).

Professor Andrea Hagan

The UN report also criticized the UK for: The widespread use of restraint and isolation on children, especially those in prison or mental health units (Just for Kids Law, 2023). Failing to protect asylum-seeking and refugee children (gov.scot, 2024). The "precipitous decline" in the rights of non-British children (Just for Kids Law, 2023). So, here we have a country that, unlike the U.S., is fully bound by the treaty. Yet, the UN is pointing to many of the same systemic failures we see here: poverty, discrimination, and a punitive youth justice system. This shows us that ratification is not a magic wand. It is a tool. It gives the UN and internal advocacy groups a legal and moral standard to hold their government accountable, something that is much harder to do in the United States without that shared legal benchmark. Whether it’s Louisiana rolling back child labor laws or the UK failing to address child poverty, the "local resistance" is powerful. But in the UK, that resistance can be officially and legally challenged by an international body. In the U.S., the resistance is the law, with no higher child-specific standard to appeal to.

Professor Andrea Hagan

And there you have it. ... We’ve seen how the UNCRC aims to set a global standard, and how the powerful forces of national sovereignty, federalism, and "parental rights" create profound resistance in the U.S. Most critically, we've seen that this isn't just abstract law. This resistance has a direct, measurable, and often harmful effect on children, from a 17-year-old in a Louisiana adult jail to a child living in poverty in London. I hope you enjoyed this lecture and that it has given you a solid foundation to build on. Your assignments for this week will ask you to dig deeper into these very conflicts. Thanks for listening. Blessings!