Page 111 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 3-4: Convention on the Rights of the Child: Educational Opportunities and Social Justice, eds. Zdenko Kodelja and Urška Štremfel
P. 111
. kodelja ■ instead of a conclusion: some othe problems with children’s rights
Renaut, 2003), to give them liberty rights. In addition, they are persuad-
ed that liberty rights should not be given to children also for another rea-
son: the fact that liberty rights are given to them by the Convention on the
Rights of the Child means that children are (or that they should be) treat-
ed as autonomous and responsible persons; that is to say, as adults. As a
result, children would lose exactly those personal characteristics which
make them different from adults. But if children do not differ from adults
in this regard, there is no longer any justifiable reason to treat them as hu-
man beings who, according to the same Convention, by reason of their
physical and mental immaturity, need special care, protection and assis-
tance. Children would therefore lose the right to be what they are, name-
ly, to be different from adults.
The problem of liberty rights relates to the Convention on the Rights
of the Child and not to two earlier international documents, namely, the
Geneva Declaration on the Rights of the Child (adopted in 1924) and the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child (adopted in 1959), in
which liberty rights are not mentioned. The liberty rights guaranteed by
the Convention include the right of the child to freedom of religion. Not
only is this right problematic because it belongs to the liberty rights, but
also because it is in opposition to the right of parents to educate their chil-
dren in line with their own religious convictions.
Antinomy of rights
In this case, there is an antinomy of rights or, in other words, a contra-
diction or conflict between rights. Parents have, under the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the same right to freedom of thought, con-
science and religion1 as their children have as provided by the Convention
on the Rights of the Child.2 As both children and parents have the same
right, when education in accordance with this right is in question, it is
obvious that they can both claim it only if there are no differences be-
tween them. If, however, differences exist, either the child or the parents
can claim it. If we also consider other international documents on hu-
man rights, we see that until the Convention on the Rights of the Child
was adopted in 1989 it was clear that parents held the right “to ensure
their children the religious and moral education in accordance with
1 “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with
others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, wor-
ship and observance” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Article 18).
2 “States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion” (Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, Article 14.1).
109
Renaut, 2003), to give them liberty rights. In addition, they are persuad-
ed that liberty rights should not be given to children also for another rea-
son: the fact that liberty rights are given to them by the Convention on the
Rights of the Child means that children are (or that they should be) treat-
ed as autonomous and responsible persons; that is to say, as adults. As a
result, children would lose exactly those personal characteristics which
make them different from adults. But if children do not differ from adults
in this regard, there is no longer any justifiable reason to treat them as hu-
man beings who, according to the same Convention, by reason of their
physical and mental immaturity, need special care, protection and assis-
tance. Children would therefore lose the right to be what they are, name-
ly, to be different from adults.
The problem of liberty rights relates to the Convention on the Rights
of the Child and not to two earlier international documents, namely, the
Geneva Declaration on the Rights of the Child (adopted in 1924) and the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child (adopted in 1959), in
which liberty rights are not mentioned. The liberty rights guaranteed by
the Convention include the right of the child to freedom of religion. Not
only is this right problematic because it belongs to the liberty rights, but
also because it is in opposition to the right of parents to educate their chil-
dren in line with their own religious convictions.
Antinomy of rights
In this case, there is an antinomy of rights or, in other words, a contra-
diction or conflict between rights. Parents have, under the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the same right to freedom of thought, con-
science and religion1 as their children have as provided by the Convention
on the Rights of the Child.2 As both children and parents have the same
right, when education in accordance with this right is in question, it is
obvious that they can both claim it only if there are no differences be-
tween them. If, however, differences exist, either the child or the parents
can claim it. If we also consider other international documents on hu-
man rights, we see that until the Convention on the Rights of the Child
was adopted in 1989 it was clear that parents held the right “to ensure
their children the religious and moral education in accordance with
1 “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with
others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, wor-
ship and observance” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Article 18).
2 “States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion” (Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, Article 14.1).
109
