2008 ICCR - Final Report

International Interdisciplinary Course
Children’s Rights in a Globalized World:

From Principles to Practice
7 to 19 September 2008
Ghent-Antwerp (Belgium)
Summary report
Edited by Wouter Vandenhole, Rachel Hammonds and Kathy Vlieghe
The Children’s Rights Centre Unicef Chair in Children’s Rights

Ghent University
Children’s Rights in a Globalized World:
From Principles to Practice
International Interdisciplinary Course
7 to 19 September 2008
Ghent-Antwerp
Belgium
FINAL REPORT
The Children’s Rights Centre Unicef Chair in Children’s Rights

Ghent University
ISBN 97890-74751-38-4
D/2009/2818/01
Proceedings of the IIC 2008, Ghent-Antwerp, 2009
Introduction
This report presents some general information on the 2008 edition of the Inter-
national Course of Children’s Rights. (1-6) Additionally, particular attention has
been paid to the evaluation process of this edition. (7) and finally we explored
the possibilities of regional training courses in the future.
We can also add that all text presentations are available on the website
www.iccr.be (password protected) and a selected choice of individual papers of
participants is published separately in this summary proceedings book.
We would like to thank Ms Rachel Hammonds and M Tautvydas Zekas for their
invaluable help in drafting this report.
Didier Reynaert
Rudi Roose
Wouter Vandenhole
Kathy Vlieghe
Introduction –
Comprehensive Report
1. Course Background
In 1989, the General Assembly of the United Nations unanimously adopted the
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Today, nearly all states in the world
have ratified the Convention expressing their willingness to implement the prin-
ciples of the CRC. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is
an important tool for improving the situation of all children in the world.
More than 18 years since the adoption of the CRC and 60 years after the adop-
tion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is time to take stock of
the achievements and challenges. In particular, as globalization expands and
deepens, challenges of poverty, environmental degradation, child labour and
migration take on a new dimension. Globalization and the dispersion of power
also mean that states are only one among many actors.
These developments challenge the concept of children’s rights and ask for criti-
cal reflection on children’s rights as leverage for societal change. The reality of
children’s rights is much richer than a legal instrument and its implementation.
In order to turn principles into practice, a multidisciplinary approach, which
allows for multiple interpretations of children’s rights, is needed. A critical re-
flection therefore strengthens rather than weakens children’s rights.
The International Interdisciplinary Course Children’s Rights in a Globalized

World: From Principles to Practice wants to make an active contribution to the
proliferation and promotion of the CRC and its underlying values and aims at
critical refection on children’s rights.
– Children’s Rights in a Globalized World: From Principles to Practice

2. Course Objectives and Themes
The 2008 edition of the International Interdisciplinary Course on children’s
rights consisted of three clusters. In the first cluster, a multidisciplinary intro-
duction to children’s rights was offered. Children’s rights experts from educa-
tional sciences, sociology and law contextualised children’s rights within their
respective disciplines. Through this multidisciplinary introduction, some of the
challenges children’s rights face, in light of globalisation and the varying con-
texts in which children’s rights are mobilised were explored.
A second cluster focused on implementation strategies and methodologies to-

wards children’s rights, ranging from child rights programming to law reform,
advocacy and lobbying, etc. Particular attention was paid to the issue of par-
ticipation of children. Based on this introduction, participants were asked to
critically reflect on their own strategies and methodologies through a collective
and individual assignment.
In the third cluster, six issues were explored, i.e. education, health, child pro-
tection, poverty, child labour and migration. The selection of these themes was
based on their topicality and their relevance for the implementation of children’s
rights in a globalizing world. A full day was dedicated to each issue. In each of
these thematic days, particular attention was also paid to children’s rights and
the environment. During the Course it was confirmed that although there is
only one earth there are many different contexts in which children’s rights re-
quire further definition and implementation. It was felt that it is difficult to give
stringent cultural criteria for defining and implementing children’s rights that
are applicable to African, Asian-Pacific, American and European contexts. This
is due to the fact that these are large, diverse regions, but also because even
within individual states cultural values differ enormously. On the other hand
participants agreed that the right of children to a healthy environment, for in-
stance, can accommodate differing cultural contexts.
While the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and its four general princi-
ples was a common thread throughout the Course, much attention was equally
paid to other children’s rights paradigms and the context in which the realisa-
tion of children’s rights takes place. Four horizontal themes were developed
throughout the Course: interdisciplinarity, cultural diversity, globalization and
fundamental tensions (between protection and autonomy, and between parti-
cipation and the best interests of the child). The first two themes were ensured
through the selection of participants and speakers in particular (in particular
by ensuring diversity in disciplinary backgrounds and regions of origin). The
last two themes were brought to the attention of speakers as particular foci of
attention.
Widely recognised experts from all over the world facilitated the lectures and
workshops.
Participants were expected to actively engage in discussions in the classroom

setting, in workshops and at informal “lounge” time. A collective and an indivi-
Comprehensive Report –
dual assignment had to be completed and presented by all participants during
the Course.
3. Assignments
The Course consisted of a mixture of lectures, workshops and round tables.
Participants were also expected to participate in a group assignment (week 1)
and to work on an individual assignment (week 2). Participants were required to
present their findings at the end of each week.
Coaching and Practical Arrangements

Participants were expected to engage in group work and to learn through group
interaction. In addition, at the end of each day a “lounge” moment was schedu-
led where participants could consult in an informal way with the invited experts
of the day. A reader was also made available for participants. Finally, the com-
puter classroom was open for participants so they could access the internet
to help with the preparation of the group assignment. Participants also had
access to the library of the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences in
Ghent and the Humanities and Social Sciences Library in Antwerp.
Collective Assignment
General Purpose
Participants of the International Interdisciplinary Course on Children’s Rights
were expected to prepare an assignment in a collective setting during the first
week of the Course. The purpose of this assignment was to allow participants to
demonstrate that they understood the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child and its underlying ideas and concepts. Course participants were
expected to show they could make use of the framework of children’s rights in
social practices. Likewise they were expected to critically reflect on the frame-
work of children’s rights and its meaning in daily practice.
Concrete Design
At the end of the first day, participants were divided into small groups of some
5 persons (via the method of “open space”). Participants were encouraged to
form groups across disciplines and geographical backgrounds. In these small
groups participants explored the first’s weeks Course contents, in particular
the multidisciplinary perspectives on children’s rights and the strategies and
methodologies for implementation. The purpose of the group work was to
create a forum for discussion where participants could share and learn so
that the Course content could be explored more profoundly. This culminated
in a presentation that reflected the discussion process (see: Presentation be-
low).
Groups coalesced around specific themes ranging from a specific concept lin-
ked to the UNCRC such as “the best interests of the child” or a particular target
group, for example children with disabilities or child labour. The groups chose
diverse themes including:

• migration and children
• participation and children
• an examination of the concept “the best interest of the child”
• the issue of cultural diversity
• an exploration of the issue of child labour
• children and education
• foster care and adoption
• health and disability
• vulnerability and poverty.
Throughout the collective assignment, the four horizontal themes of the Course
were intended to serve as guidelines. These are:
• Interdisciplinarity
• Cultural diversity
• Globalization
• Fundamental tensions (between protection and autonomy, and between
participation and the best interests of the child).
Presentation
At the end of the first week (Saturday September 13) a presentation and discus-
sion moment was organized. Each group had 10 minutes to present the out-
come of their group deliberations. The concrete output of the group assignment
differed and included Power Point and roll play presentations.
These group presentations were following by commentary from the invited ex-
perts and discussion sessions.
Individual Assignment
General Purpose
The Course aimed to reach out to trainers and high-level professionals, who
could themselves, share the insights and knowledge that they acquired from
the Course with colleagues. The individual assignment aimed at encouraging
critical reflection on one’s own professional work in the field of children’s rights,
and at the promulgation of good practices.
In preparing their assignment, participants were expected to critically reflect

on their own understanding of children’s rights and the current way in which
they were integrating this into their work. They were asked to identify ways in
which their understanding and practice could be enriched by insights gained
from lectures, discussions and group work during the Course. What do they
take home from here, and what do they want to do with it?
Concrete Design
Participants were briefed on this assignment on the first day of the Course.
They were expected to submit the essay at the latest on Thursday 18 Septem-
ber (14.00 hours). A collective feedback workshop was organized on Friday 19
September. Individual feedback was provided upon request.
Participants were expected to write an essay of maximum 1,500 words (3 pages)

in which they
• explained their current professional activities in the field of children’s
rights;
• critically reflected on these activities on the basis of lessons learnt from the
Course;
• translated these reflections and lessons into specific objectives for their fu-
ture professional activities.
Participants were encouraged to refer to the expectations they had outlined on
their application form.
A selection of essays, which is representative of the different expectations, per-

spectives, intentions, and professional areas, will be published by the Course
organizers.
4. Course Conveners
Children’s Rights Centre, Ghent University
The Children’s Rights Centre was set up in 1978 and is linked to the Department
of Social Welfare Studies at Ghent University. The Centre organised an annual In-
ternational Interdisciplinary Course in Children’s Rights between 1996 and 2000,
and subsequent editions in 2003, 2004 and 2006. It also ran an interdisciplinary
research project on ‘Human rights of children. Implementation and monitoring
through participation’. This joint study focused in a second phase on participation
of children and was a network research project between the Children’s Rights
Centre and the Human Rights Centre of the Law Faculty of Ghent University, the
Institute of Constitutional Law of the Law Faculty of the Catholic University of
Leuven (K.U.Leuven) and the Department of Criminology and Penal Law of the
Law Faculty of the Catholic University of Louvain-la-Neuve (UCL).
The Centre’s current research mainly focuses on a socio-political reading of

children’s rights.
UNICEF Chair in Children’s Rights, University of Antwerp

The UNICEF Chair in Children’s Rights was established in early 2007. It offers
courses and training in children’s rights to students and practitioners. Its re-
search aims at exploring the interaction between, and mutual enrichment of,
children’s rights and human rights in the field of economic, social and cultural
rights. Particular attention is paid to the mobilization of children’s rights in the
Global South. The Chair is attached to the Law Faculty. It actively participates in
the European Network of Masters in Children’s Rights. The Chair holder is an
advisor on children’s rights to the European Union as member of a network of
independent experts to the Fundamental Rights Agency.

University College Ghent
The Faculty of Social Work and Welfare Studies is one of the 13 faculties of
the University College Ghent. The faculty offers a Bachelor in Social Work and
a Bachelor in Socio-educational Care Work. Research activities in the domain
of social work focus on the relation between care and rights, where children’s
rights are of particular interest. The social practice of children’s rights educa-
tion is studied from the perspective of social pedagogy.
5. Information about Participants:

Graphs on Gender, Region of Origin, Professional
Background and Professional Discipline
The composition of the Course participants was highly diverse in terms of re-
gion of origin, professional background and gender. The 50 participants came
from 36 countries including the continents of Africa, Asia, Central and Latin
America, Europe and North America. In terms of professional background par-
ticipants fields included pedagogy, social work, anthropology, psychology, law,
medicine, sociology, economics and journalism. They included grass root wor-
kers as well as academics, representatives of national governments and indivi-
duals working with both national and international NGOs.
6. Profile of Presenters
In selecting presenters for the International Interdisciplinary Course on Child-
ren’s Rights the organisers focused on quality and diversity. Selecting a group
of presenters recognised as expert in their field was an important criterion. As
with the attendees the organiser’s strove to have a geographically and profes-
sionally diverse group with a gender balance.

Professional Diversity
The final presenters were a diverse group including professionals from the non-
profit NGO sector including, UNICEF, African Child Policy Forum and the NGO
Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, academics from throughout
Europe and public servants including the Chair of the Belgian National Com-
mission for the Rights of the Child. The academics came from many disciplines
including philosophy, international law, social work and social welfare, law and
development and reproductive health.
Geographic and Gender Diversity

Due to financial, monetary and scheduling constraints the majority of the pre-
senters were from Europe. There were two presenters from Latin America,
Gerardo Sauri and Mariana Blengio Valdes and two came from Africa, Assefa
Bequelle and Julia Sloth-Nielsen.
There were slightly more presentations by male presenters than by female pre-
senters.
7. Course Evaluation
Evaluation Method:
Each day, every participant was asked to complete a detailed evaluation form as-
sessing the day’s activities (e.g. presentations, discussion panels, assignments
etc.). The forms provided for the evaluation of each lecturer using a coded response
to evaluate the presentation and its content. Also, participants were encouraged to
write open comments on the evaluation form. Anonymity was a key component of
the evaluation process. At the end of the Course a detailed assessment form was
distributed to participants and again open comments were encouraged.
Participation:
A large number of participants participated in the evaluation process. Speci-
fically, on average, 40 or more completed evaluation forms per day were re-
turned, and 37 completed detailed evaluation forms were submitted on the final
day. Many forms contained open comments and suggestions. A detailed evalu-
ation report per day and per activity is available on request. What follows is a
report of the main elements.
Contents of the evaluation forms:

As is evident from the detailed evaluation report a large majority of participants
rated the large majority of the Course very positively in terms of Course con-
tent, group dynamics, and the quality of the presenters and participants.
Course content
Participants praised the wide-range of themes addressed in the Course, as well
as the less conventional approaches to learning, like the Children’s Rights Edu-
cation Walk in Ghent.
Group dynamics
Many participants enjoyed the collective assignment as it presented an oppor-
tunity to engage with other participants from diverse professional and cultural
backgrounds. The informal group discussion groups were also a time for explo-
ring the issues raised in presentations.
Quality of presenters and participants

Many participants commented on the high quality of the presentations and the
in-depth knowledge displayed by most of the presenters. The quality of parti-
cipant questions and contributions was also praised as contributing to the lea-
rning process. The professional and geographical diversity of the participants
was viewed positively.
Several common suggestions were made regarding areas with potential for
improvement:
Increase the number of small workshops

The positive experience of the first week’s collective assignment group discus-
sions helped participants realise how much they had to learn from one another.
Several participants noted that knowledge sharing amongst participants could
be enhanced by increasing the number of small workshops and/or discussion
groups allowing participants to apply concepts they learned and share these
applications with other participants.
Increase opportunity for participant interaction during presentations

Although participants were appreciative of the variety and quality of presenters
they would have liked more opportunity to interact amongst themselves during
lectures. Several presenters gave participants the opportunity to discuss (5-10
minutes) their reaction to the points raised in a lecture with other participants
midway through the lecture. These mini-discussion breaks were greatly appre-
ciated by participants with many noting how they helped improve their under-
standing and focus.
Increase the geographical distribution of presenters

The geographical diversity of the participants was praised by participants and
this diversity highlighted the need in future courses for more presenters from
the global south than the four in the current one.
8. Sustainability: Course Outputs, Regional

Initiatives and Moving Forward
Impact of the Course
In addition to what participants themselves have learned and acquired in terms
of knowledge and expertise, the Course makes a major contribution to
10 – Children’s Rights in a Globalized World: From Principles to Practice

• The establishment and elaboration of a network of professionals. Partici-
pants have informed us of cooperation set up between participants’ institu-
tes following the Course.
• In-house and local training initiatives: several participants informed us
about their planned or intended in-house or local briefings or training ini-
tiatives as a follow-up to the Course. (e.g. One participant was organising a
Children’s Rights demonstration planned for 30 November 2008, six noted
they would organise workshops on children’s rights for colleagues and se-
veral noted they would expand their research and teaching in the area of
children’s rights.)
Dissemination
A publication containing a selection of short papers written by Course parti-
cipants, to satisfy the individual assignment requirement, is currently under
preparation.
National and regional training

A major objective of the Course conveners is to trigger a multiplier effect, so
that the Course inspires other, regional as well as national, training initiatives.
On the one hand, regional initiatives outside Europe are needed in order to fully
integrate cultural diversity and local specificity into training initiatives. On the
other hand, national and regional initiatives are better suited to respond to the
clear need to offer training to grassroots workers and to provide them at a more
practical level. Our Course mainly targets advanced professionals.
In light of this concern, and at the explicit request of a number of participants, a

brainstorming session on regional initiatives was held during the Course. Par-
ticipants from East Africa, Lebanon and Georgia in particular have expressed an
interest in organising a regional or national training.
The convenors of the International Course in Children’s Rights believe that they
should not organise, but facilitate national and regional initiatives by
• sharing their organisational and managerial expertise
(i.e. course budgeting ; course format etc)
• sharing their materials (reader, background documents etc)
• making their substantive expertise available to the extent possible
(i.e. teaching at these trainings)
• sharing their network of experts/presenters
• actively supporting local organisers in fundraising.
In order to follow-up on this, the Course conveners will explore further pos-
sibilities with the financial sponsors of the course to know whether and under
which conditions the sponsors would be able and willing to contribute to such
national and regional initiatives, e.g. by providing financial support in order to
cover travel and subsistence of foreign experts.
Comprehensive Report – 11
Selected papers collected out
of the individual assignments
presented by the participants
Uses and abuses of the children’s

rights convention: from the
globalized discourse to a localized
implementation
Ana Ancheta Arrabal University of Valencia – Spain

There is no doubt that the global and globalized context in which we currently
live acts as a framework where children’s rights have more than ever become
a dynamic issue. In this edition of the course several experts – E. Verhellen and
V. Pupavac, among others – made explicit that childhood, as a social construct,
has been and still is changing through the different times and diverse places
in our world. Hence, “childhood is a dynamically construct related to economic
changes and long historic processes”, and “the social and the economic struc-
ture, and the location of the child’s family within a structure, determines the
parametres of childhood and the parametres of agency” (Lieten, K., 2008).
Like societies, the conception of the child is no longer static and neither is the
perception of his/her wellbeing and rights, as we have been able to confirm fol-
lowing their evolution until the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child (CRC) during the past century. In fact, the CRC is the final result of
a long process in the fight for preserving the life and the dignity of children that
is still taking place, in the sense that it has been improved through later and
different comments, and attempts to adapt to the particular cases and situati-

ons. Therefore, even though “the CRC is an unavoidable starting point for any
discussion of the legal rights of children” (Archard, D., 2008), we must remem-
ber the nature of the process that had the CRC as an end result. The CRC “can
be interpreted in different ways and with different consequences for children,
parents and educators” – and, subsequently, for communities, regions and na-
tions– so, “it is suggested that distinguishing between the interpretations is es-
sential with regard of the pedagogy and education” (Roose, R. and Bouverne-de
Bie, M., 2007).
From my perspective, this is an ‘extensible’ premise to any implementation of

the CRC as one of its good uses for all the children can also turn against the
best interests for some or all of them. That is exactly why one of the main con-
clusions from this encounter could be: we are at the point, after globalizing the
CRC principles from the founders to the rest of societies, that the need to loca-
lize the practices to implement the CRC has been never more acute. This simply
means that the CRC should be a reference but not an imposition, and to avoid
this abuse of the CRC the contextualization/localization to the variety of con-
texts is as an absolutely fundamental assumption. In this sense, we have been
able to corroborate that, even the value of using the CRC as a tool to interpret
other treaties – like, for instance in the case of the EU, the European Convention
on Human Rights (ECHR) – for implementing its principles and provisions into
domestic law, the “black holes” of legislation are real in the field of the concrete
practices. It this guideline, among others, that becomes a requirement to consi-
der the four dimensions of implementation (Englundh, E., 2008): political, legal,
pedagogical/methodical and ethical.
Furthermore, policies need to be conceived from a multidisciplinary perspective

and be coordinated in order to guarantee the rights of the children, but also to
promote cooperation between the different stakeholders where children them-
selves need to be considered at all the levels of implementation. Moreover; “the
need of an advocacy with and for children – Lansdown stated with disabilities
but it should include all the children – based on a comprehensive understanding
of the CRC (…) to encourage governments not only to ratify the Convention, but
to take necessary measures to implement it effectively”. Nevertheless, no po-
licies are ‘child-neutral’, especially economic policies. So far policy and action
has paid less attention to the interests of children than to the common wealth of
the regions, ironically ‘in the name of the rights for the child’. For example, let
us just think how many countries negotiated debt alleviation agreements with
different international organizations which ‘universalized’ certain rights and,
consequently, we will understand why children’s interests will remain invisible
unless specific attention is directed at meeting them. In this respect, as Rey-
naert, D., Bouverne-de Bie, M. and Vandevelde, S. pointed out in their interven-
tion, “an institution such as a children’s ombudsperson can play an essential
role in protecting children’s rights at policy level”.
1
EURONET (2002): Challenging Discrimination against children in EU. European Chil-
dren’s Network: http://www.europeanchildrensnetwork.org/Documents visited in May
2006.
Selected papers collected out of the individual assignments presented by the participants – 13
Another remarkable fact that became evident and recurrent in the majority of
interventions in the course is that, even though a great majority of the states
have ratified the Convention, there are still several forms of discrimination
against certain groups of children (poor children, ethnic minority children, non-
nationals, disabled children, children in penal institutions, etc.). Many child-
ren suffer through life from one or some (multiple discrimination) forms of dis-
crimination and the impact of this situation on children can be highly damaging.
Recognition of the invisibility and consequent discrimination against children
has been made but there is not a clear role for the governments in facilitating
states’ compliance with the commitments entered into under the CRC. The set-
ting up of a new anti-discrimination budgetline is a positive step which should
be used to develop initiatives in relation to children. Already a call for prepara-
tory action in the field of social exclusion has been made. However, although
this budgetline will cover initiatives to support children as well as other groups,
we have seen how the available funding is insufficient to tackle the widespread
and diverse problems of poverty and social exclusion faced by children.
These days, we frequently witness how the phenomenon of discrimination and

social exclusion poses greater complications to young children’s life, and more
concretely in the case of developing countries how distinctive degrees of equity
exist among the inequalities those vulnerable groups suffer as a collective on the
basis of their status. “The circumstances under which many millions of children
have to live, struggling to survive at the bare minimum are a sound reminder of
the need for structural changes and the need for new instrumental approaches
based on child as a subject of action” (Lieten, K.). Discrimination can and does
serve as the first force to prevent the realization of all rights and to perpetuate
the reality that many groups of children will be denied opportunities to realize
their optimum potential. Hence, social exclusion has become one of the impor-
tant themes in contemporary social policy debates: competitiveness has been
not established as the sole strategy for development, and social inclusion is
also emphasised reflecting what education and training systems are expected
to deliver. Since the adoption of agendas like EFA, MGD or the Lisbon goals it
is increasingly explicit that education and training systems are expected to pro-
vide not only favourable growth prospects and contribute towards the transition
2
KILKELLY, U. (2005): “Strengthening the Framework for Enforcing Children’s Rights:
An International Approach” in ENSALACO, M. & MAJKA, L. C.: Children’s Human
Rights. Oxford, Rauman &Littlefield Publishers, INC.
HODGKIN, R. and NEWELL, P. (1998): Article 2, Implementation Handbook for the Con-
3
vention on the Rights of the Child. New York, UNICEF.

EURONET (2001): Including Children? Developing a coherent approach to child
4
poverty and social exclusion across Europe. European Children’s Network:

http://www.europeanchildrensnetwork.org/Documents visited in April 2006.
ATKINSON, A. (2002): “Social inclusion and the European Union” Journal of Common
5
Market Studies Vol. 40. n. 4, p. 625-643.

to a knowledge-based economy and society but also towards combating social
exclusion. Thus defined, education is a key to social inclusion.
The increasing attention to education within the different policies is to be wel-

comed as the development of a high standard in these areas is fundamental to
the future economic and social progress. Nevertheless, many children actually
cope with social exclusion, significant degrees of discrimination, harassment
and even violence on a regular basis, and therefore encounter obstacles in gai-
ning access to rights that should be available to all citizens. Because of their
rapid rate of physical, mental, emotional and social development, children are
more vulnerable than adults to the effects of social exclusion. As a result, there
is evidence across the countries to suggest that social exclusion affects directly
the ability of many children to take up educational opportunities, especially tho-
se from disadvantaged groups (e.g. ethnic minority children, traveller children,
refugee children).
However, in light of Articles 28 and 29 of the CRC, there must be an understan-

ding that education and training must reflect the needs of children and young
people themselves. Children are holders of rights because they are human
beings and children. They are humans who are growing and passing through
another phase of the life cycle so, their rights must be guaranteed for this rea-
son and not just for the type of adults they will become in our future society, as
is usually the concern of politicians and the media. Even more, we should think
and act on the warning that children are, as a matter of fact, part of the current
societies and, like any other share of the last ones, empower them to partici-
pate in the issues and decisions that concern them, both from an individual and
social perspective; in this context, education, further than a mean, becomes
crucial as a main aim to realize the CRC.
Finally, to this extent, I want to end my comments by emphasizing the role of

Early Childhood Education and Care as a primary form of education and for the
successful integration of these groups of vulnerable children. As the existence
of inequalities in the access to this form of education and care for the smal-
lest children has been corroborated by different European government policies,
these inequalities limit enormously the arduous work that is now supposed to
guarantee the right to education to all children as one of the ratified rights of
the CRC by all party states.
The CRC applies equally to all children although their age, moreover specifi-
cally addresses the rights of vulnerable groups of children to equal treatment.
Thus protection should not be restricted to any kind of differentiation between
6
SOUTO OTERO, M. and McCOSHAN, A. (2005): Study on Access to Education and Train-
ing. Final Report for the European Commission. Birmingham, (Priestley House). ECO-
TEC, Research and Consulting Limited.
7
EURONET (1999): A Children’s Policy for 21st Century: First Steps. European Children’s
Network: http://www.europeanchildrensnetwork.org/Documents visited September
in 2005.
children, and governments and institutions must ensure that they take active
measures to prevent discrimination and social risks. The CRC has a vital part
to play in raising awareness that rights apply to all children in all circumstan-
ces, and that those who are vulnerable have a right to access public services
in relation to their degree of need. (It) provides the framework, principles, and
architecture to support the application of children’s rights (…) because it defi-
nes, in one holistic document, the prerequisites for the wellbeing of all child-
ren and the obligations of all elements of society to fulfil their rights allowing
the achievement of equity (Waterston & Goldhagen, 2008). Children’s rights are
increasingly being accepted around the world but still there is much more rhe-
toric paid to their value than genuine enforcement. Professionals – the authors
discussed paediatricians, but it could be applied to other such as teachers, psy-
chiatrists, social workers, etc. – can make a difference to the status of children
worldwide by adopting a rights-based approach. But, what is more, we all have
a social responsibility to include the children’s rights perspective in our life;
as active members of a society, community and neighbourhood. Wherever vul-
nerable children are located, they have rights which different “stakeholders”
(from international level, via national and local levels, and the community, e.g.
families, to the children themselves) should try to guarantee by fighting to stop
sufferings, such as social exclusion and the poverty cycle, that children have to
confront.
{
Bias of instrumentalization of the crc
As a framework Potential of the crc
U Indicator of child wellbeing to analyze diffe- (+)
S rent realities and how rights become violated
for certain groups that need to be identify
E
S As a tool
Instrument to eradicate barriers for develop- (+)
ment (in its broad or holistic sense) but also (-)
for the implementation of the CRC itself (the
A role of governments and its interests in the
B process)

U
As a means
S
Not as an aim but the way for other purpo- (-)
E ses and certain rights become the “bargaining
S chip” (e.g. alleviation of debt)
Note: the incomplete bibliographic citations throughout the paper refer to the texts used
by the authors for the different interventions in the course that, I suppose, will be include
in the publication so I cannot quote the exact pages yet.

The Office of the Children’s Advocate:
Protecting the Rights of Children
Dwayne Cargill Office of the Childrens Advocate – Jamaica
Introduction
Children rights mean different things to different people and must be seen in a
holistic context. Having worked with the Office of the Children’s Advocate (OCA)
Jamaica, this concept was seen in the limited sphere of the country context.
This paper will seek to provide a practical understanding of the role and func-
tions of the OCA and a critical reflection on these activities in relation to the
experiences and theoretical framework provided by experts in the field. In addi-
tional, this perspective will be used to map the way forward for implementation
of adaptable theories and experiences for the work of the OCA in the Jamaican
context.
It is essential for these rights to be upheld for children to mature into positive
citizens. Therefore, it is necessary for all to work in unison to ensure that there
is stability and continuity of the society.
Roles and functions

According to Jose Alvarez cited in Ericsson, August 2006 Once the international
community decided to make human rights part of the legitimate mandate of
international organizations, it became clear that we were authorizing them to at
least consider any matter that has an effect on human dignity. The Jamaica go-
vernment after ratifying the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child
(CRC) in 1991 found it necessary to align the national laws with that of the CRC.
In 2004, the Houses of Parliament passed the Child Care and Protection Act
which amalgamated several different pieces of legislation. This Act established
the Office of the Children’s Advocate (OCA), a commission of parliament, with
the main thrust of protecting and enforcing the rights of children.
The function includes advocacy through legal representation, public awareness

of child rights and consultations with children and relevant stakeholders, policy
advice to parliament and relevant ministers and ministries, receive and inves-
tigate complaints in cases where child rights are violated by relevant authori-
1
OCA Annual Report 2008 submitted to the Parliament of Jamaica
ties, and review laws and services for children. In carrying out these functions,
there are several issues that we have to contend with and in many cases, there
are no clear answers. We however uses the ‘3 Ps Principle’ in carrying out our
task in ensuring that children’s rights are upheld and enforced in the court, in
the family or other critical institutions.
There is often times many conflicting issues relating to the child’s best interests
among various institutions. This is usually as a result of the varying role and
objectives of the different stakeholders. The very diverse nature of our work
present a challenge as the problems are so complex and frequent that our focus
is limited and is based on the actual issues that come to our attention through
children, adults, the media and other institutions working for child rights. Cri-
tical to our advocacy programme is consultations with children who inform the
work of the office. Some of issues that became a part of the agenda were re-
lated to child abuse in the home, school, correctional institutions for children
and child care institutions, lack of recreational facilities for children, inade-
quate infrastructure in children’s institutions, non action of government which
cause violation of some children’s rights, inadequate services for children in
with mental health issues and children living with disabilities.
Critical reflection
Children’s rights and the best interests principles continues to be the centre
of decision making at the OCA however, there are some cultural and moral
issues that will have to be dealt with if the office is going to move forward and
have a greater impact on the life and wellbeing of children. It is also clear that
fundamental to the advocacy process for child wellbeing is the participation of
children in all aspect of our work.
As it relates to the cultural issues, we will have to be more careful how we intro-
duce certain issues particularly as it relates to corporal punishment and child
rights versus parental roles, responsibilities and rights. Although in lobbying
for the abolition of corporal punishment we had advocated for alternatives,
we were less keen on the cultural role that it play in the society and the or-
der and disciplinary meaning that it connotes. Many adults were unsupportive
2
CCPA, 2004 defines this as any ministry, department or agency of government, Parish
Council, Statutory body or authority or a company registered by the Companies Act
which the government or an agency of government holds not less than 51 per centum
of ordinary shares.
Provision, Protectio and Participation Rights
3
Government ministries and Agencies, NGOs, CBOs and private entities

4
OCA Annual Report 2007/8 to parliament indicated physical, sexual and neglect as the
5
more common forms.

and still are resistant to this recommendation. Having reviewed UNICEF rela-
ted research we consulted children on how the use of corporal punishment by
teachers made them feel but we did not consult with the other stakeholders –
the parents and teachers. Additional, our approach to child rights enforcement
have been strictly child focus without any much attention for parent or adults
and their rights to their children. This had serious implications has in Jamaica,
there is the culture that “children must be seen and not heard” and thus many
persons are still unsupportive of child rights especially with participation and
where children talking back is seen as disrespectful. It must be mentioned
though that the office has always teach children to be respectful and respon-
sible in all public education activities. It is my view that the office will have to
direct some of our efforts to the adults and parents.
It is still a challenge deciding what is morally right or wrong especially where

people’s socialization is different. This is especially so when one uses the de-
finition on the Landers University website which states that “moral issues are
those which involve a specific kind of experience, i.e., a special kind of fee-
ling”. This further brings home the reality that best interests are even harder
to define even when the CCPA has legally defined the concept. The course has
expanded my knowledge and thinking in realizing that parents have their own
conception of best interests which is usually not an universal one and some-
times their action while to me is not the child’s best interest are in their mind
the best thing to do based on their situation/culteure/experience.
The distinction of childhood is so important in understanding the action of pa-

rent or child from a poor or rich family. There is also an acceptance that poverty
is not a sufficient reason for children to be separated from their parent as the
CRC and the CCPA accepts that the family is the primary agent for the child
maturity and development. However, I reflect on a woman with 4 children in
Jamaica whose home was destroyed by a hurricane and had to shelter in an
insanitary place with her children. The government agency responsible for care
and protection of children went and took all the children and placed them in
child care facilities because the children were deemed to be in need of care and
protection. This woman almost appears ‘crazy’ after this action. The children
had to do without their parent who was doing the best she could in her poverty.
Was that action in the best interests of the children?
There is a whole plethora of issues that are conflicting which present a tension
as it relates to the wide ranging solution that one may choice. However, it is
necessary for solution to be contextual and adaptable.
6
University of Landers, Department of Philosophy http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/
issue.html
The way forward
The work of the OCA has somewhat negated the essential work of the parent
and has left this aspect of the Convention to other agencies. It has now become
critical for there to be a new strategy in our public education campaign to in-
clude a more focused campaign around the roles and responsibility of parent
and their right to steer the development of their children.
It is also essential to rethink the strategies of eradicating corporal punishment.

Although we accept the view that corporal punishment can develop anger and
rebellion in children, the office will now have to carefully look on the cultural
meaning of this action and have dialogue with all stakeholders on how best to
eradicate this and what suitable alternatives can be had.
There is an urgent need for psycho-social support for vulnerable and abuse
children in Jamaica partly due to a shortage of these professionals as well as
increase in the country’s institutional capacity to deal with these children. For-
mal and informal discussions with the expert have provided a practical starting
point for the realization of this need. While there might not be adequate human
and institutional resources to effectively operate such service, funding will be
sought to adapt the training manual used in the Philippines to train some go-
vernment workers and NGOs in providing psychosocial support for these child-
ren.
As it relates to children living with disabilities, there is still limited data of the
extent to which the society is affected by this. World Health Organization re-
ports prevalence of disability at 10 per cent which PIOJ, 2001 uses in its study
to estimate that there are 240,570 persons living with disabilities in Jamaica.
The OCA in its Annual report to Parliament also confines the issue of disability
to health which should be treated in a broader sense as a disability does not
make a person unable to function rather it is the societal structure which many
times creates this. It will therefore become necessary for a redefinition of the
concept by the OCA which will define new methods of advocacy for children with
disabilities in Jamaica.
Planning Institute of Jamaica, 2001, People – Magazine of the Social and manpower
7
Planning Division

References
Child Care and Protection Act, 2004 (Jamaica Parliament)
Ericsson, Kate; Scholar Discusses the Growing Role of International Law
Jose Alvarez of Columbia University dated August 8, 2006 August 8 re-
trieved from http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/August/
20060808174756wknosscire0.7569391.html
Department of Philosophy, University of Landers; Moral Issues retrieved from
http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/issue.html. on September 17, 2008
Planning Institute of Jamaica (2001) People – Magazine of the Social and man-
power Planning Division; Kingston, Jamaica
Office of the Children’s Advocate (2008) Annual Report 2007/2008 (Jamaica Par-
liament)
Child Rights Advocacy in International
Development Cooperation The
beginning or the end of dialogue?
Hans De Greve Plan Belgium
As Advocacy officer for Plan Belgium, an international development NGO with
a focus on the realisation of children’s rights in the developing world, the main
object of my work is to promote the adoption of a child rights based approach
in Belgium’s development cooperation. This implies advocating for child rights
with the Belgian government’s development cooperation policymakers and in-
stitutions (DGDC, BTC), the Belgian development NGO’s and to a lesser extent
the Belgian multinational corporations with activities in developing countries.
The focus of this paper is on “advocating for the realisation of child rights throu-
gh the Belgian government’s development cooperation”, but can, as I believe,
be extrapolated to any advocacy work on the realisation of child rights, be it
with NGO’s, corporate businesses and even outside the world of development
cooperation. Be aware though, that some of issues raised here will probably be
more of an issue in development cooperation than in other contexts.
What I want to raise in this paper is related to an issue that I have encounte-
red very recently in my work for the Platform for Children’s Rights in Develop-
ment Cooperation (referred to as ‘Platform’ from hereon), a Belgian coalition
of NGO’s, researchers and international experts serving as an advocate and
expert centre for the adoption of a child rights approach in Belgian development
cooperation.
Although based on my experience with Plan Belgium, the reasoning being de-
veloped in this paper are strictly of a personal nature. It has been developed as
an educational exercise in the context of the International and Interdisciplinary
Course on Children’s Rights and in no way does it reflect the position of Plan
Belgium or the Platform on these issues.
Advocacy Strategies for Children’s Rights in

Development Cooperation
Since a law-reform in 2005, Children’s rights have become a cross cutting the-
me in the Belgian development cooperation. Recently the minister for develop-
ment cooperation submitted to parliament his strategy for the implementation

of this cross cutting theme in the government’s development cooperation prac-
tice. With this, the time for implementation of a child rights approach has finally
(after a couple of years spent drafting the strategy but mostly spent fighting
over BHV) come.
Rightly so the Platform, very quickly and without a lot of debate, adopted the
position that implementing the cross cutting theme ‘Child Rights’ in develop-
ment cooperation implies the adoption of a ‘Child Rights stance’. The argument
goes that children’s rights are everywhere, almost every aspect of life and thus
of development cooperation touches on one or more children’s rights. Thus
children’s rights are something that should be addressed in every policy, pro-
gramme, project, action, etc. Whatever you do, you should make the realisation
of the rights of the children central to everything you do.
Although I believe that in principle this may be correct, and as straightforward

and simple as it may seem, this argument could cause problems when trying to
advocate the cause of children’s rights in development cooperation. The main
problem lies with the fact that politicians and civil servants just don’t like cross
cutting themes. To put it nicely, cross cutting themes are a real pain in the back
for them. They are very difficult to measure, they are very uncooperative if one
wants to do a budget analysis on them, they don’t tell you exactly what to do …
but also they are extremely broad and encompass many sectors, departments
and disciplines in development cooperation.
When bringing up a cross cutting theme in advocacy, one of the first question
raised goes something like this: Okay, this cross cutting theme is really im-
portant and we will do everything we possibly can to make it central to all our
activities, but as we can’t do everything at once…what do you think are the most
important priorities?
On the part of politicians and administrators this is of course very understan-

dable. Having a number of priority issues to work on, to implement concrete
hands-on child centred projects in the field has many advantages over the
mainstreaming of a cross cutting theme into all the nooks and crannies of their
organisation (I won’t go in to it here but it has to do with manageability and PR-
reasons among others).
Anyhow, especially in the short run, advocating for this wider cross cutting ap-
proach is often very difficult. The question is, do we keep on hammering the
same cross cutting nail, or do we give in to the wishes of the government and
identify our number one priorities for our countries approach to children’s
rights in development cooperation?
This question we encountered relates to a more fundamental tension between

the principle of the indivisibility of rights within the CRC and the impossibility
of realising all children’s rights in situations where problems are abundant and
budgets are tight (like in the developing world). On the one hand the indivisibility
principle a priori stops us from setting priorities while on the other hand reality
leaves us no other choice.
Before making an attempt to ‘work around’ these two extremities, I will briefly
outline the pro’s and con’s of both options: going for the cross cutting all rights
and we want them now approach or choosing the value for money and let’s get
something on the ground approach.
The biggest pro of the cross cutting all rights and we want them now approach
is of course that when in place it gives the best guarantees that child rights
are going to be an issue, something that is thought about in everything you do.
Con’s are that it is not a sexy approach and is thus difficult to sell to politicians
who need public support for their policies, it is an approach that is very difficult
to manage and it gives the impression of being some kind of unattainable ideal.
So even though it might be the best option in principle, the risk of advocating for
this approach is that child rights get mainstreamed away into policy documents
and jargon oblivion but never actually get implemented because of a complete
lack of political will and administrative capacity.
The other option is that you choose to advocate on a number of priorities –the
value or money and let’s get something on the ground approach. The pro’s of
this approach are that when priorities are chosen wisely one can generate so-
lid results for children on the ground with a minimum of resources in a very
limited time (via projects centred on children’s issues). Especially in the case of
children’s rights it gives politicians the opportunity to generate a lot of public
interest, while the manageability of this kind of approach is high, both of which
greatly enhance the chances of politicians and administrations allocating lar-
ger amounts of resources to child centred interventions. So although it isn’t
the ideal, you actually do get things done for the world’s children. On the other
hand it is a very unstructured way of working on children’s rights. Chances are
high that projects are only implemented on a number of high exposure topics,
there is no mainstreaming of children’s rights in organisations so very little
organisational learning takes place, projects are applied plic ploc so even if the
situation on a couple of rights of children improves, god knows what the effects
are on other rights they hold, or what other rights you are completely ignoring
(indivisibility principle).
The beginning of dialogue as a way forward?

Now, is there a way around these to extremities? Let me have a go by man-
handling Dr. Roose’s concepts of Child Rights as End of Dialogue or Child Rights
as Beginning of dialogue, because I believe, how far of it may be, there is paral-
lel here.
Very roughly Dr. Roose’s idea of Child Rights as the end of dialogue comes down
to the argument that stating the CRC and the rights of the child as the ultimate
ideal, as something inherently good that has to be attained as soon as possible,
as something that will solve all problems and therefore needs to be realised in
every aspect of society makes an end to the dialogue, and thus impedes any de-
sirable result. Just as stressing the importance of child rights as the priority can
be counter productive because it makes parents feel instrumentalised only for

the wellbeing of their children, or because it makes parent’s who can’t live up to
the ideal of negotiated upbringing into ‘bad parents’, one has to be careful when
advocating for cross cutting child rights and the CRC in development coopera-
tion as the ideal, as something that has to pervade every action, that it doesn’t
turn against you. Governments, organisations and communities (especially in
developing countries) who can’t live up to the ideal, a very difficult one to attain
indeed, could for instance be seen as ‘bad’ and as a result opt out completely.
Or governments and organisations for instance who feel that everything they do
is being instrumentalised only for the wellbeing of the children in society start
to become frustrated towards the issue of child rights – because developing
society is more than only helping these children realise their rights.
Since Dr. Roose’s concept of Rights as end of dialogue seems to have some pa-
rallels with advocating a very stringent rights based approach to development
cooperation and the very ad hoc value for money lets get something on the
ground approach can’t really be called a child rights approach at all, since it just
focuses on some child related issues, maybe the concept of Child Rights as the
beginning of dialogue can help us find a way out.
In child rights as the beginning of dialogue, children’s rights are seen as a lever
to discuss the inequality of children and adults in society. In advocacy, could
this mean that one doesn’t state in advance that all these 42 rights are to be
realised now and without further discussion, that it is the duty of the state to
think of children’s rights in everything she does only because children have
these rights and want them now!? Maybe it would then make more sense to not
only advocate for children’s rights to be a cross cutting theme in every policy,
programma, project and activity, but at the same time working together with
the government and organisations, discussing the inequalities of children and
adults, on a number of concrete issues first and thereby slowly learning that the
framework of Child Rights and the CRC can be a starting point for arriving to
more sound ways of doing development cooperation where through dialogue on
children’s rights between duty bearers and rights holders, one realises child-
ren’s rights and human right’s and contributes to the development of society?
Child participation in kenyan
schools: myth or reality?
Lillian Kaviti, PhD University of Nairobi – Kenya
Introduction
The interpretation of child participation used in this paper is based on the posi-
tion of Cattrijsse and Delens-Ravier (2006) that there should be: “…respect for
the child’s positions depending on his or her capacities of understanding…wit-
hout imposing a ‘paternalist’ vision of ‘what would be good for them’; it is about
allowing them to define, to the extent of their possibilities, with a pedagogical
support, in consultation with adults, the objectives followed.” The School, as
an institution and the education system a country develops will affect the over-
all development of the child. An ideal school environment imparts knowledge,
skills and values critical to the full and harmonious development of the child.
This is enshrined in the UNCRC Article 29 (a) which states that: …the education
of the child shall be directed to: (a) the development of the child’s personality,
talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential.
From May to July 2008, secondary school students in Kenya engaged in violent
acts of arson and destruction of school property across the country. Over 300
secondary schools were affected by these violent protests which culminated in
the burning of school dormitories, classrooms and laboratories. There were at
least two reported deaths of students killed during the mayhem, with numerous
others sustaining serious injuries. Low cost government-funded schools were
the worst affected. In order to avert further destruction of school property, the
police arrested several juveniles to face what the Minister of Education termed
as: “the full force of the law”. Kenya ratified the UNCRC and ACRWC and both
instruments have been domesticated into law in the form of the Kenya Child-
ren’s Act (2001). This document is: An ACT of Parliament to make provision
for parental responsibility, fostering, adoption, custody, maintenance, guardi-
anship, care and protection of children…; to give effect to the principles of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child and the African Charter on the Rights and
Welfare of the Child….
F. ANG et al, (2006) Participation Rights of Children, Antwerpen-Oxford, Intersentia.

1
Pg.24.
UNCRC Article 29 (a)
2
DAILY NATION , August 2008

3
Kenya Children’s Act of 2001, Preamble

4

The paper examines the underlying factors that influenced the student riots and
arson attacks by focusing on the reasons provided by student representatives
who presented their views before the Parliamentary Committee on Education
set up to investigate the violent protests. The paper also examines the reacti-
ons of state actors, teachers, parents and school administrators towards this
form of student participation. Finally, my discussion will integrate the useful
insights learned during the 2008 ICCR training that formed the basis of recom-
mendations on how to enhance positive forms of student participation in Ken-
yan schools.
Background: Effects of the 2007 Post-election

violence in Kenya
Following the flawed December 2007 elections in Kenya, ethnic identities,
which had hitherto been irrelevant, suddenly became issues of concern. During
this period, a significant number of children were alienated from their parents,
some ending up living in IDP camps. Others, although not enduring violence first
hand, were traumatized by images of brutal killings and arson attacks through
the media, fuelled by the ethnic hatred that spiralled out of control throughout
the country. Children felt bewildered and overwhelmed, yet with no safe forum
to voice their concerns. Following the formation of the Coalition Government
and a return of peace to Kenya by March 2008, the emphasis quickly shifted to
how best schools could make up for lost time by cutting back on the students’
vacation period in April 2008. Consequently less effort was directed to address
the children’s needs for post-traumatic stress counselling following what they
had endured during the post-election period.
In response to this student unrest, the Kenyan government immediately con-

stituted a Parliamentary Committee on Education to investigate the reasons
behind the wave of student unrest that had culminated in wanton destruction
of students and school property. The mandate of this Committee was to visit
affected schools and collect the views of stakeholders and actors within the
Education sector. The views would then be used to influence policy and improve
the management of schools to avoid future strikes. Those interviewed included
student representatives, teachers, head teachers/principals, parent represen-
tatives and education officials from the Ministry of Education responsible for
policy implementation. A group of student representatives who met the Parli-
amentary Committee on Education gave a number of reasons why they had re-
sorted to burning their own schools and destroying school property. According
to the students, frustrations and disappointment were the main causes of their
riotous acts, which they interpreted as their form of “participation”.
1. Student protests as a direct reflection of adult participation

methods
Student representatives put the blame on politicians for influencing the spate of
school unrest. The students claimed that they were simply following the beha-
viour of Kenyan Members of Parliament during the 2007 post-election period.
From their perspective, relationships among students were significantly wea-
kened after witnessing the violence that pitted different communities against
each other. A related grievance was that the mass protests they had witnessed
on the streets organized by politicians protesting against an unjust regime also
inspired them to turn unruly. Generally, mass protests and strikes are a com-
mon feature in urban areas of Kenya, ranging from striking civil servants, mass
protests by members of the media and civil society, school teachers, nurses,
university students and lecturers. This seems to be an effective way of getting
the Kenyan government’s attention on pertinent issues. In the words of one
student representative: “We have learnt from you that to be heard in Kenya,
you must take mass action. Violence is the only way to express our problems”.
Hence, burning down their schools seemed the only effective weapon for the
students to use in order to have a voice in society that would demonstrate their
displeasure with the rigid school administration. The students had internalized
the perception that violent protests usually get the attention of the government
and that destructive mass protest is the most effective form of participation to
bring about positive change.
2. Mob psychology and the role of the Media

The Media, in its important role of informing the public, sensitized students in
one part of the country on the activities of their fellow students in other parts of
the country. Mob psychology could therefore have influenced students to strike
in solidarity with their counterparts elsewhere. A few students did indeed con-
fess on condition of anonymity to the media that strikes in schools were a “sour-
ce of fame” for them. Consequently, the students who were at the forefront of
organizing or leading the chaos were considered to be instant “celebrities” for
their bold acts.
3. Overloaded curricula
The student representatives blamed the school administration and their own
parents for not involving them in crucial decisions that directly affected them
such as holiday tuition. From their perspective, both the primary and secondary
school syllabi could easily be covered within the normal school terms, thereby
leaving them with three vacation months in March, August and December for
their relaxation. In their view, public school teachers deliberately slow down
the pace of their teaching during the school terms in order to justify the need
for holiday tuition for which they receive an additional income. The students
further complained of inadequate leisure time and recreational facilities and
with no one seriously interested in their grievances. In the words of one stu-
dent: “…decisions are made without our input and yet we are expected to obey
them”. An overloaded curriculum and extended terms in school goes against
Article 31(1) of the UNCRC and Article 17 of the Kenya Children’s Act (2001)
(The Standard, Friday August 8, 2008)

5
(DAILY NATION, Tuesday August 12, 2008)

6

which states that: State Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and lei-
sure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the
child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts”. This indeed, is a
legitimate sentiment. Excluding annual interschool drama and music festivals,
the majority of Kenyan schools have totally disregarded the role of leisure in
schools. Moreover, a number of schools located in urban areas lack the space
for playing fields and other recreational facilities. Consequently, the children
lack space to expend their boundless energy. The school environment has the-
refore become more of a prison camp, lacking any exciting leisure activities
with an overemphasis on academics.
4. An authoritarian and oppressive school administration

The student reported feeling overburdened with numerous unresolved conflicts
and grievances both at home and in school. The typical public school system
in Kenya is rigid and dictatorial, rarely accommodating student opinions in de-
cision making. Student representatives cited oppression and stress allegedly
inflicted by their parents and the school administration as having pushed them
to riot. School administrators and teachers were accused of highhandedness in
their management of the schools. Teachers, in particular, control their students
by instilling fear and threats of retribution. Kenya abolished corporal punish-
ment in schools in 2001, but did not orient teachers to what alternative disci-
plinary measures they could use. Consequently, secondary school teachers felt
helpless and therefore resort to threats, intimidation and insults, all of which
serve to diminish the children’s self worth. In the hierarchy of intimidation are
the school prefects, who owe their allegiance more to the teachers and school
administration than to their fellow students. Such high-handedness left the stu-
dents with no alternatives except to resort to violent acts and wanton destruc-
tion of property. The demands of a modern life have also forced many parents
to relinquish their role of instilling values and discipline to teachers. A gradual
breakdown of the previously healthy social networks has resulted in modern
“nuclear” parenting, leaving parents with hardly any time or patience to listen
to their children’s concerns. Such an environment cannot provide the right en-
vironment to nurture young, impressionable minds. Instead, it has served to
alienate children further from being recognized as significant participants and
key stakeholders in decisions that affect them.
5. A hopeless education system

The student representatives felt that they were subjected to a frustrating and
overburdened education system that promised little hope for their future. The
system in Kenya is that after four years of secondary school education, students
sit for the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE), which is the second
major “cut-off” examination that determines the students’ entrance into public
universities. Prior to this final exam, students do are subjected to “mock” exa-
minations which are meant to give teachers, students and parents some idea
on the final performance of the student in national examinations. Consequently,
passing national examinations is the core business of the education system as
the only avenue to a better standard of living. Children go through an education
system that neither trains them on critical thinking skills, nor how to exploit
their talents and apply the knowledge they have learnt to develop their ability to
express their opinions and respect others views as well. Students claimed that
such mock exams caused them undue stress and anxiety. There is a need for
Kenya to develop a less intimidating assessment method that also lays empha-
sis on both the acquisition of knowledge and the development of critical thin-
king abilities.
6. Poor food and hygiene standards in schools

The majority of schools that experienced student unrest were low cost govern-
ment funded schools. A recurring complaint from students was that the food
served to them was of poor quality and inadequate for their needs, coupled with
poor sanitation facilities especially in boarding schools. One explanation for this
state of affairs could be that delays in the disbursement of free education funds
by the government might have played a role in the wave of student strikes. Ken-
ya only recently introduced free secondary school education (FSE) at the begin-
ning of 2008, while the provision of free primary education (FPE) was initiated in
2001. Although this is a positive step towards the MDG goal of Education for All,
the initiative has forced government funded schools to function in an environ-
ment characterized by inadequate physical structures and financial resources.
Reaction of State officials to the Student riots

After collecting views from the relevant actors, the Parliamentary Commit-
tee compiled a report that sighted indiscipline and “rampant drug and alcohol
abuse” among high school students as the primary reason behind the wave of
student unrest in the country. A second reason sighted was insecurity in some
schools. Further, representatives of the Kenya National Union of Teachers
(KNUT) blamed permissiveness of the society for the school strikes. Parents
were accused of having relinquished the role of disciplining their children en-
tirely to teachers in order to concentrate on developing their careers and earn
out a living. Nevertheless, representatives of the Teachers’ union condemned
the strikes and empathized with the additional financial burden imposed on
parents in affected schools. Finally, the Education Committee also found fault
with the administration of schools, because teachers and education officials
had failed to develop close working relationships with their students.
Ministry of Education:
Students to face “the full force of the law”
The Education Ministry vowed to take tough measures on the students involved
in the strikes who would have to face “the full force of the law”. The Committee
further recommended that students in the affected schools would have to be
“cleared” by the police before they could be readmitted back to their schools.
This provides a contradiction to the UNCRC Article 40 on children in conflict

with the law. Under the UNCRC, high school students (14-17 years on average)
are termed as “minors”, “juveniles”, or “vulnerable persons”. The directive gi-
ven by the Education Minister therefore indicates tokenism on the part of the
Kenyan government with regard to the recognition of children’s rights and the
need to encourage genuine child participation. The mindset that children do
not know what is best for them and thus must be “kept in line” is still a major
challenge to child participation in Kenyan schools.
1. Tough conditions on the readmission of “guilty” students

The Ministry of Education recommended that all students who had been in-
volved in organizing strikes be expelled from their respective schools. Student
transfers in public secondary schools were also suspended for one year. Such
measures deprived the students not only the chance to resume studies in their
former schools, but also the chance of accessing education in other schools.
Tough rules were imposed on the suspended students. Stringent conditions for
readmission meant that students had to sign declarations that they would never
take prohibited items such as cell- phones to school. Other schools interroga-
ted students as a way of intimidating them to implicate the leaders of the arson
attacks. All students would also require clearance from the police before being
admitted to school. The monies would be used for the reconstruction of dormi-
tories. In boarding schools, “troublesome” students were forced to become day
scholars. Parents too, were not spared and were forced to pay between € 20-65
per student depending on the amount of damage caused to school property in
the affected schools.
Admittedly, the destructive acts were heinous and bordered on attempted mur-
der, destruction of property and violations of other people’s rights. However,
the juvenile justice system cannot allow these students who committed offen-
ces during the school strikes to face “the full force of the law”. This is because
the law requires that every court dealing with a child who is brought before it:
“Shall have regard to the best interests of the child”. Interestingly, the phrase
“best interests of the child” appear 14 times in the Kenya Children’s Act of 2001.
This must be the primary consideration in every issue (criminal or otherwise)
concerning children. With regard to this, the Minister of Gender and Children’s
Affairs disassociated herself from the Education Minister’s directive and emp-
hasized that any student arrested over alleged destruction of property should
be dealt with as a child offender rather than facing “the full force of the law”
as proposed by the Education Minster. In Kenya today, thousand of adult of-
fenders and suspects languish for years in remand jails awaiting their cases
to be heard. Subjecting children to the same situation would amount to a gross
violation of Article 40 of the UNCRC.
2. Introduction of a Safety Manual to address student unrest

Following the unrest, the Ministry of Education developed a Safety Manual to
be use in schools. This manual would be included in the syllabus to be taught
both in the school and home environments. The Minister also reiterated that
teachers had a duty to protect the rights and interests of students and not to
incite them to violence against the management. In addition, the Government
employed 333 extra quality assurance officers to ensure that quality education
was offered at all learning institutions in Kenya.
3. Provision of additional security in schools

The Government, in collusion with the local authorities, would as a precautio-
nary measure, ensure that enough security is provided in all secondary schools
to curtail the sneaking in of drugs into the learning institutions. It was recom-
mended that police officers be allowed to respond directly to curbing student
strikes in order to respond to control damage of property.
4. Ban on holiday tuition

The only indication that the Education Ministry had taken the views expressed by
student representatives seriously was the ban on holiday tuition in all schools.
Although remedial teaching would be allowed for academically weak students,
this would only be practiced under the strict supervision of education officials.
The National Parents Association and the Kenya Secondary Schools Heads As-
sociation both supported this decision, pointing out that it would help children
relax and avail time for parents to spend with their children. Teachers were
therefore advised to organize for remedial classes during the term to complete
the syllabus then interfere with the children’s holidays. However, the reality
on the ground is that most secondary schools ignored this directive and went
ahead with their holiday couching during the August 2008 vacation month. The
low incomes teachers in public school receive in Kenya forces them to look for
extra sources of income, to the detriment of the children’s leisure time.
5. On the reintroduction of corporal punishment

Following the spate of student unrest, appeals were made by parents, tea-
chers and school administrations on the need to reinstate tougher disciplinary
measures on children by reintroducing corporal punishment in schools. In res-
ponse to this, the Minister of Gender and Children’s affairs attributed the spate
of unrest in schools to indiscipline in schools and urged parents to take up the
responsibility of personally disciplining their children instead of abdicating this
role to teachers. With regard to the reintroduction of corporal punishment in
schools, the Children’s Minister opposed this move and reiterated that it would
be a gross violation of the rights of the child and further, would reverse the
gains Kenya had made thus far to reduce cases of child abuse.
Conclusion: Enhancing child participation in

Kenyan schools
In order to avoid future student unrests, it is essential that the governance struc-
tures in schools allow for genuine participation of children in schools. A parlia-
mentary system could be used where children are allowed to air their concerns
in an organized way, with the head teacher assuming the role of “Speaker”,

a respected figure of authority in any parliament. The school prefect system
should also be reorganized, with only those students who have proven themsel-
ves to be of good character, diligent, intelligent or possessing other desirable
traits being worthy of consideration. The prefects must be representative of the
student voice and a key link to enhance student-teacher engagement in the
school setting. Just like in ordinary parliamentary practice, regular meetings
would be essential, where issues affecting the students are discussed following
laid down protocol. While students have a duty to be decent and respectful in
airing their sentiments, they must also enjoy immunity without fear of repri-
sal. Such a forum would give students the space to ventilate and get rid of any
lingering stress and frustration. The environment must be child-friendly and
students must not feel pressurized to air their views if they do not wish to do
so. Additionally, Kenyan school should strive to create traditions and practices
that bind all of the school community members-students and teachers alike.
Traditions serve as a strong bond that unify the school community together as
partners with common interests and a common goal of improving the school
environment. When the students see themselves as partners rather than hel-
pless students, it would be highly unlikely that they would conceive of burning
down their own schools.
An additional way of enhancing student participation is to inculcate a spirit of

service in children from an early age. By the time children attain secondary
school age, they have attained a considerable degree of maturity and sense of
responsibility. Exposure to voluntary service schemes would nurture the desire
to give back to society a portion of what the children have received by spending
a maximum of two hours during weekends doing voluntary work in hospitals
or community projects. In so doing, children would become more responsible
citizens, as they engage in positive participation to serve the community. The
Kenyan school curriculum places too much emphasis on passing of exams to
the detriment of the child’s physiological and psychological health. It would be
in the child’s best interests for every school to promote a strong culture of ex-
tra-curricular activities which emphasizes the development of a well rounded
child.
The Kenyan school system would benefit from putting more emphasis on laid
down structures and support systems for continual interaction, communication
and mentoring among and between students, and between students and the
administration. It would be in children’s best interests to have a schools sy-
stem where students are viewed as a significant actors and stakeholders in the
education process that is democratic and nurtures the ability of self expression
as well as respect for other people’s opinions. Since children’s opinions with
regard to the education system had been ignored for so long and they had been
deprived of a “space” to air their sentiments on their education, burning their
schools was their form of “participation”. Violence and destructive acts were
therefore the only way for them to get their voices heard. This strategy seemed
to have worked in the country after the 2007 general elections, when ethnic ten-
sions came to the fore front and people who had peacefully co-existed suddenly
burned down each others farms and homes. The Kenyan school system has an
obligation to teach students peaceful protest methods and create safe environ-
ments where students can air their views without fear of retribution from their
teachers, parents and the society as a whole.
Drug and alcohol abuse was identified by the Parliamentary committee as the
main cause of student unrest. In some cases, children are introduced to drugs
and alcohol abuse as soon as they join secondary schools. Older students who
are already in active addiction initiate the new students into these habits. The
new students are then threatened to keep this secret or else face the wrath of
the older students. All this could happen without the knowledge of the teachers.
This is where the role of child participation comes in. If children are socialized
from an early age to voice their opinions with the confidence that what they say
will be heard and taken seriously, then the bullying and drug abuse which goes
on secretly in Kenyan schools would be nipped in the bud. However, as long as
the school administration and teachers turn a blind eye to students’ opinions,
drug addiction cases and related criminal activities will persist. School coun-
sellors need to be in a position to get the students to speak out about negative
influences they witness both in and around their school environment without
the fear of retribution from any one party in the schools system.
Guidance and Counselling departments in Kenyan schools need to be streng-

thened and teachers equipped with the necessary skills to help children talk
freely about the challenges they face both at home and school. The Parliamen-
tary Education Committee recognized this need and recommended that tea-
chers should attend crash courses on guidance and counselling. It is doubtful
whether such “quick fix” solutions would make a significant impact on impro-
ving how teachers engage with their students. Most of the teachers lack special
training outside the incidental guidance and counselling courses some of them
may have taken in college. Extra training would therefore develop the necessary
listening skills necessary to help teachers deal with the emotional needs some
students may be facing. Lastly, the school environment must be characterized
by genuine trust, warmth, empathy and understanding. Only then can students
feel free to speak about their fears and concerns. Indeed, many of the scenes
of students burning down their dormitories and classrooms are not so much
criminal tendencies as they are a way of students crying out to be heard and
taken seriously by society.

Bibliography
Ang F. et al (2006). Participation Rights of Children. Antwerpen – Oxford, Inter-
sentia.
Kenya Children’s Act, 2001, No. 8 of 2001.
Hart R. (1992). Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship, Flor-
ence, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children (UNCRC)
Human Rights Watch, Kenya (May 1999). Corporal Punishment in Kenyan
Schools
From Physical Punishment to Positive Discipline: Alternatives to Physical/Cor-
poral Punishment in Kenya’, ANPPCAN Kenya, 2005.
Reflections on Interdisciplinarity
and the Convention on the Rights
of the Child (CRC)
Hadi Khosravi Lile University of Oslo – Norway
It is misleading to regard sociology of law simply as another branch of gene-
ral sociology (or jurisprudence for that matter). Other branches of sociology,
for example sociology of family, youth, ethnicity, religion or education, are
not to the same extent exposed to interdisciplinary epistemological tensions
and confrontations. – Reza Banakar
The above quotation is from Reza Banakar. He has written a paper on the lack
of a paradigmatic foundation within sociology of law. In this paper he elaborates
on the tensions between law and sociology as two fighting parent sciences –
sociology of law being the stepchild of these two sciences who cannot find its
identity. The International Interdisciplinary Course on Children’s Rights in a
Globalized World: from Principles to Practice was indeed an interdisciplinary
event with a mix of lawyers, sociologists, field practitioners and others. During
the conference a multitude of different perspectives on the Convention on the
Rights of the Child was shared and clashed together. The tensions and confron-
tations between law and sociology (including the science of education) were
obvious, although in a civilized manner.
Sociologist on the defensive

During the conference the perspectives of the sociologists were on the defen-
sive. Human rights and the CRC have to a certain extent been dominated by
legal perspectives. Other perspectives are often just referred to as “non-legal”.
According to Banakar, a sociologist who studies the law has to stand beside the
legal system and ‘observe’ legal processes and structures from the outside. He
explains that:
Banakar, Reza (1998) The Identity Crisis of a Stepchild – Reflections on the Paradig-
1
matic Deficiencies of Sociology of Law. Oslo: Retfærd 81/1998, page 7.

From now on I will refer to the The International Interdisciplinary Course on Children’s
2
Rights in a Globalized World: from Principles to Practice, only as ‘the conference’.

3
In this paper I will use very broad definition of the science of sociology. It includes
political science, science of education and social psychology.

It also implies that the view from within, i.e. the lawyer’s perspective of the
law is hidden from the sociologist and therefore becomes automatically ex-
cluded from his/her scope of observation and analysis. Thus it is understood
that the sociologist is expected to avoid making comments on matters de-
fined by lawyers as technical legal issues which are only visible to initia-
ted ‘insiders’. Since the sociologist willingly – and perhaps in an attempt to
avoid criticism – declare himself/herself as incompetent to critically review,
analyse or comment on legal mode of decision making and argumentation,
then he/she is forced to treat a large part of the activities constituting the
legal field as politically neutral.
Indeed during the conference some sociologists started their presentations

or comments by stating their ignorance about the legal aspects of the CRC.
Actually some would declare that they did not know much about the CRC at all
(legally or non-legally). The CRC is a legal document. If a sociologist does not
know anything about the legal aspects of the CRC, what does he/she know?
What could be the sociological contribution to knowledge about the CRC? Socio
logy is a science driven by curiosity and a desire to unravel the hypocrisies and
underlying structures of our human society. It is a science that questions the
reality we take for granted. Sociology demonstrates the need to take a broader
view of why we are as we are and why we act as we do. For those who believe
in ‘the system’ and have faith in an institution a sociological study might be an
unpleasant experience – and that is the point. However for the sociologist to
make a difference and contribute to new knowledge he/she might have to know
the system pretty well. When it comes to the law-system many sociologist do
not really know what they are talking about. Reza Banakar explains that:
The jurists are, according to the sociologists, disturbed by the fact that one
might succeed in transcending the artificial legal barriers created with the
help of language and other symbolic means and reveal the real political
and economic constituent elements of the law for what they really are. The
jurists, on the other hand, describe their resentment and dislike of socio-
logical intrusions, not so much because they are afraid of disclosure, but
because the sociologist is an outsider who does not grasp the intricate le-
gal meaning of what they do. […] The sociologist, who cannot, according to
the jurist, understand what is actually happening from a legal point of view,
tries to make general critical statements regarding the effects of law on
society. For lawyers such statements are usually devoid of legal meaning
and thus uninteresting.
4
Ibid, page 9
5
Giddens, Anthony (1997) Sociology: third edition. Cambrige: Polity Press, pages 1-15.
6
Banakar, Reza (1998) The Identity Crisis of a Stepchild – Reflections on the Paradig-
matic Deficiencies of Sociology of Law. Oslo: Retfærd 81/1998, page 10.
For some presentations at the conference Reza Banakars’ description is spot
on. After first having declared their ignorance about the laws of the CRC some
sociologists went on to present their critical reflections on the “fundamental
flaws” of the CRC. Most of the jurist thought these presentations were me-
aningless and uninteresting. As a sociologist myself, I thought they were quite
embarrassing. Still, the question remains: How can a sociologist contribute to
new knowledge about the CRC? In order to answer this question it might be
good to first look at some of the limitations of jurisprudence.
Limitations of a legal approach to the CRC

The legal science is very much a science of books and the interpretation of texts.
It is also a practical science based on the practise of laws and jurisprudence.
But there are no surveys involved, qualitative interviews, systematic observation
techniques or experiments. Research on human rights has been dominated by
legal scholars. A resent study by Hans-Otto Sano and Hatla Thelle shows that
the lives of individuals and groups are lacking in human rights research. They
argue that ‘people’ are not sufficiently present in human rights research and
that institutional processes are under-researched. Evidence which analyze in-
stitutional decision-making processes concerning e.g. compliance or which il-
lustrate the struggles by marginalized groups for realizing their rights or which
examine the effectiveness of human rights implementation enter rarely into
the analyses. Sano and Thelles’ article departs from an analysis of sources
used in articles published in recent volumes of Human Rights Quarterly and
the Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights (2005, 2006 and 2007). These two
journals were chosen because they are regarded as among the most respected
human rights journals, which publish interdisciplinary articles. They conclude
the analysis as follows:
It appears that on average 46% of the sources for scholarly articles in the
quoted journals during these three years were respectively organisational
reports, administrative or legal documents while on average 45% of the re-
ferences quoted were secondary literature. The remaining references (9%)
were almost equally distributed between quasi-legal and internet sources.
Virtually none fall into our category of quantitative or qualitative data.
Only 0.1% of sources in 2005 and 2007 could qualify as quantitative data, total-
ling a staggering 3 references. In 2006 there was not a single reference to quan-
titative data. There were a few more references from qualitative data: Some
Sano, Hans-Otto and Hatla Thelle (2008) The Need of Evidence Based Human Rights
7
Research, page 1: http://web.abo.fi/instut/imr/nordforsk/activities/AR/HR%20metho

ds%20article%202%20draft%20final.doc
Ibid, page 5.
8

0.2% in 2005, 0.1% in 2006 and a jump to 29 references (1.5%) in 2007. One
might thus conclude that sociological research methods based on the collection
of qualitative and quantitative data is largely missing from research on human
rights, and consequently also from research more specifically on the children’s
rights and the CRC. The consequence of this is that ambitions to analyse and
understand the implementation of the CRC are compromised. Knowledge about
access of justice for different groups is missing. Marginalized groups are not
identified. One might note that it has been argued that an individual complaint
mechanism for the CRC would not be good because it would favour children
with resourceful parents, while the most marginalized children, those who suf-
fer the most, will not have the resources to bring their case to the courts.10
However such arguments are based on no evidence, just general assumptions.
Save the Children and other NGO’s might jump at the chance to defend poor and
marginalized children whose rights are violated. The whole argument might
just be a political excuse to avoid the strengthening of the protection of children
rights. But again I have no evidence to prove any such arguments. In a paper by
Martti Koskenniemi he refers to a study back in 1957 by a certain Julius Stone,
whom enquired about the possibility and prospect of a sociological analysis of
in international law. It would entail the study of attitudes, perceptions and eva-
luations transmitted in communication between individuals in significant poli-
cy-making positions. He concludes that the sociology of international law must
move still in a difficult and unknown land, with conditions unknown and paths
unablazed.11 Martti Koskenniemi concludes that: “In the near half-century after
Stone, no sociology of international law has emerged beyond generalisations
about interdependence and the balance of power”.12 It is funny how Kosken-
niemi himself, in the same article, towards the end takes the liberty to blurt out
some generalisations, stating that:
We like to think of the present law in terms of fragmentation, diversity, mul-

tiplicity. But how plausible is that? When legal experts from Amnesty Inter-
national or a ministry of defence meet at an international conference, how
different are they? It is the sons and daughters of WTO representatives who
take to the streets in Geneva.13
9
Ibid, page 4.
10
Smith, Lucy (2003) Human rights for children, in: Bergsmo, Morten (2003) Human
Rights and Criminal Justice for the Downtrodden: Essays in Honour of Asbjørn Eide.
Leiden: Brill Academic Publisher, page 743
11
Stone, Julius (1956) Problems Confronting Sociological Analyses in International Law.
89 RdC, pages 141-154.
12
Koskenniemi, Martti (5. march 2005) Global Legal Pluralism: Multiple Regimes and
Multiple Modes of Thought. Helsinki: University of Helsinki (Manuscript for a lecture
at Harward), page 14.
13
Ibid, page 21.
Is it really so that the legal experts walking the streets of Geneva are all the
sons and daughters of WTO representatives, is it all a big conspiracy? I am not
going to elaborate on this, but get back to the subject.
Another area where the legal science falls short has to do with the practical im-
plications of the law. One thing is what the law says, but another is how to im-
plement it in practise. I will use CRC article 29 on the purpose of education as
an example. CRC article 29 (1) (b) and (d) states that education of the child shall
be directed to “the development of respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms” and “the preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society,
in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship
among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indige-
nous origin”. The very first general comment of the Committee on the Rights of
the Child was on the purpose of education as enshrined in article 29. Elaborating
on the above content of the article they say, among other things, that:
Racism and related phenomena thrive where there is ignorance, unfounded

fears of racial, ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic or other forms of
difference, the exploitation of prejudices, or the teaching or dissemination
of distorted values. A reliable and enduring antidote to all of these failings
is the provision of education which promotes an understanding and appre-
ciation of the values reflected in article 29 (1), including respect for diffe-
rences, and challenges all aspects of discrimination and prejudice. Educa-
tion should thus be accorded one of the highest priorities in all campaigns
against the evils of racism and related phenomena.14
The obligation of states to design educational programs to combat racism and

prejudices has been codified by a range of other instruments too, among them
article 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimi-
nation (CERD). However my point is not to elaborate on the legal content of this
provision, but to show that it is a legal requirement of states that require know-
ledge beyond the law. The objective of eliminating prejudice through education
is not an easy task. If done in the wrong way one might just increase prejudices.
Katarina Tomaševski (2001), points out that:
The words of caution about educational programmes merit repeating: “For-

cing a prejudiced person to read or hear exhortations on tolerance may only
increase his prejudice. Overenthusiastic appraisals of the contributions of
a minority may create a reaction of distaste for members of that minority;
and programmes improperly presented, even with the best intentions, may
create an awareness of group difference that did not previously exist.15
14
Committee on the Rights of the Child (2001) CRC/GC/2001/1: General Comment no.1:
The Aims of Education, paragraph 11
15
Tomaševski, Katarina (2001): E/CN.4/2002/60: Annual report of the Special Rappor-
teur on the right to education, paragraph 36. The reference she quotes is from the:
Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities,
report on the prevention of discrimination (1949), paragraphs 17 (c) and 177.

How to design an educational program that effectively can combat prejudices
cannot be solved by legal science, it is a challenge for the science of educa-
tion.
Sociology of law
So then, how can a sociologist contribute to new knowledge about the CRC? As
I have shown there are several areas of research that cannot or simply is not
addressed by legal scholars. Thus there are areas of research that badly needs
a sociological approach. However in order to address questions of relevance
the sociologist must have a minimum knowledge of the law. If the sociologist
is completely ignorant about the law, how can he/she know what to look for in
a sociological study of the implementation of the CRC? How can he/she un-
derstand what policy makers are talking about? How can he/she discover the
dilemma that needs a pedagogical analysis in order to be implemented? Maybe
the last point is an exception. Maybe a legal scholar can explain the dilemma
enshrined in article 29 regarding for example educational methods for comba-
ting prejudices, and simply hand the research question over to the pedagogue?
But then again a legal scholar might not discover that there is a pedagogical
problem at all. The issues I have mentioned require knowledge of both law and
sociology. Sociology of law is the name commonly used to describe the scienti-
fic arena for solving such issues. Some argue that this is a scientific three of its
own. Håkan Hydén comments on Banakars article and says that:
Sociology of law is more than a branch on the three of sociology. Being sub-
ject to interdisciplinary tensions and confrontations, sociology of law must
go beyond reproducing the knowledge that stems from its parent disciplines
of law and sociology.16
However, one might argue that sociology of law must acknowledge its connec-
tion to both its “roots” (or parent sciences) and not try to create its own epis-
temological foundation.17 But I am afraid I must stop now. I hope the reader
understand that an interdisciplinary approach to the study of the CRC is not
without its challenges.
16
Hydén, Håhan (1999) Even a Stepchild Eventually Grows Up: On the Identity of Sociol-
ogy of Law. Oslo: Retfærd nr. 85/1999, page 71.
17
Sand, Inger-Johanne (2000) A Future or a Demise for the Theory of the Sociology of
Law: Law as a normative social and communicative function of society. Oslo: Retfærd
nr. 90/2000, page 55.
References
Banakar, Reza (1998) The Identity Crisis of a Stepchild – Reflections on the Pa-
radigmatic Deficiencies of Sociology of Law. Oslo: Retfærd nr. 81/1998
Committee on the Rights of the Child (2001) CRC/GC/2001/1: General Comment
no.1: The Aims of Education
Giddens, Anthony (1997) Sociology: third edition. Cambrige: Polity Press
Hydén, Håhan (1999) Even a Stepchild Eventually Grows Up: On the Identity of
Sociology of Law. Oslo: Retfærd nr. 85/1999
Koskenniemi, Martti (5. march 2005) Global Legal Pluralism: Multiple Regimes
and Multiple Modes of Thought. Helsinki: University of Helsinki (Manuscript
for a lecture at Harward)
Sand, Inger-Johanne (2000) A Future or a Demise for the Theory of the Sociolo-
gy of Law: Law as a normative social and communicative function of society.
Oslo: Retfærd nr. 90/2000
Sano, Hans-Otto and Hatla Thelle (2008) The Need of Evidence Based Human
Rights Research, page 1: http://web.abo.fi/instut/imr/nordforsk/activities/
AR/HR%20methods%20article%202%20draft%20final.doc
Smith, Lucy (2003) Human rights for children, in: Bergsmo, Morten (2003) Hu-
man Rights and Criminal Justice for the Downtrodden: Essays in Honour of
Asbjørn Eide. Leiden: Brill Academic Publisher
Stone, Julius (1956) Problems Confronting Sociological Analyses in Internatio-
nal Law. 89 RdC
Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Mi-
norities, report on the prevention of discrimination (1949)
Tomaševski, Katarina (2001): E/CN.4/2002/60: Annual report of the Special
Rapporteur on the right to education

A Reflection on Child Rights and
Advocacy
Carleen McGuinty Policy Advisor, Child Protection World Vision – Canada

When I began this course, I had just changed positions within World Vision
Canada. World Vision is a child-focused international development, relief and
advocacy organization. I had spent the previous year and a half working on go-
vernment relations within our Advocacy team. Our team aimed to influence go-
vernment policy to improve or promote child well-being in the Global South.
My new position within World Vision is that of Policy Advisor – Child Protection
within our Advocacy and Education division. This role focuses on child exploi-
tation issues such as sex tourism, trafficking, and armed conflict. My task is to
develop and implement a child protection advocacy strategy that is grounded in
child rights and reflects the priorities of our colleagues working in the Global
South.
To create such a strategy, I need to understand child rights and how they apply
to my work. The course has been a very good first step towards that end. The
opportunity to now reflect on the course and its application to my work is very
valuable. This exercise has allowed me to begin the process of translating and
digesting the wealth and breadth of new knowledge this course has offered.
The views I held before this course have been challenged. I now see more gray
than just black and white. My critical thinking skills have been re-invigorated
which will lead to important improvements in my work and ideally in the life of
children. I have discussed in this short essay the transformation that has oc-
curred within me and how I plan to move forward with this new knowledge in
my professional life.
Critical Reflections and Way Forward:

The course has forced me to consider and reconsider how child rights are ap-
proached within my organization and within my new role. A few of these points
are explored below.
1. Organizational approach to child rights:

To understand my current responsibilities, I must first understand our organi-
zational position on child rights. World Vision endorses the principles and arti-
cles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and its two Optional
Protocols (on the involvement of children in armed conflict, and on the sale of
children, child prostitution and child pornography). We believe that the Conven-
tion “provides an appropriate statement of the minimum standards relating to
survival, development, protection, non-discrimination, and participation of all
children and the obligation to keep the best interest of children in mind”(World
Vision International Board Policy, 2004).
Decidedly, we believe that the CRC is the most effective tool to reach these
minimum standards which so many children are not yet able to enjoy. However,
World Vision is aiming for higher standards. As articulated in our organizational
vision statement, our ultimate objective is to achieve “for every child, life in all
its fullness” implying the realization of the highest standards of life with dig-
nity, justice, peace and hope for all children (World Vision Internal Document,
2008).
Apart from endorsing the CRC, World Vision’s approach to development, relief
and advocacy is decidedly “child-focused”. A key measure of the success of our
interventions is based on a set of child well-being outcomes related to child
health (physical, mental, spiritual) and a loving and caring environment that
provides protection and fosters child participation.
Finally, it remains to be said that World Vision increasingly utilizes rights-based

approaches as an essential tool to achieve child well-being outcomes. Howe-
ver, we do not call ourselves a rights-based NGO. World Vision embraces child
rights as fundamental to addressing poverty and injustice, but as articulated
above, sees them as minimum standards for children as opposed to a fuller
Christian view of “life in all its fullness.” This guides our vision and mission
statements, and ultimately our understanding of poverty and how to address it.
Rights will always play a complementary role in moving towards this vision. The
course however has forced me to ask the following question: Is it problematic
that World Vision has not embraced an explicit child-rights approach to our
work?
I have learned from this course, particularly from Professor Archard, that ex-
plicit rights discourse can indeed be problematic. It can create immediate ne-
gative responses from individuals, communities, and their leaders as it can be
seen as a zero sum approach - it’s all or nothing. Rights and rights discourse
can also be viewed as the end of discussion and therefore can immediately cre-
ate barriers. Having heard many lecturers, including Prof. Rudi Roose, I much
prefer the approach where child rights are a starting point for discussion, and
not an end in themselves. I also like that a rights approach does not have to be
about particular articles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child per se, but
about the values and fundamental principles which underpin all these articles.
Considering that my work is to influence decision makers, namely politicians
and bureaucrats, how I use child rights is critical. I do not want it to be a hin-
drance. In my own work, I will adopt a child rights approach that is not neces-
sarily explicit, but one that is nonetheless a starting point for policy discussion.
The fundamental principles of child rights will be upheld in my policy recom-
mendations and advocacy “asks”.

2. Child participation and child rights within advocacy
and policy initiatives:
Child participation is one of the fundamental principles that I believe I can most
concretely integrate into my work.
Within World Vision internationally, advocacy was recently made one of the
three key pillars of the organization along with relief and development. I now
ask myself questions I never really considered: Where are the children found
in our advocacy work? What strategies have we used to include children in our
policy papers and in our government lobbying? I am aware that children are
the focus of our policy publications. However, I had never before asked or paid
attention to how children participated in these publications, how their views
were expressed and how they were given due weight. I now appreciate that we
are making great strides in partnering with children in our advocacy initiatives,
most recently in our engagement at the 3rd World Congress Against the Sexual
Exploitation of Children and Adolescents. Our organization consulted hundreds
of children in preparation for the Congress. Their priorities and recommen-
dations on the topic of sexual exploitation, compiled in a widely disseminated
report, drove our policy engagement at the congress itself. In addition, 16 World
Vision supported children were actively engaging at the international event as
speakers and co-moderators of workshops.
My upcoming policy work will be based largely on research I will conduct and
compile into policy reports, briefs, letters, etc. To ensure alignment with the prin-
ciple of participation, I will endeavor to include the views and opinions of children
in the research process. One practical approach I can use is to consider the views
of children in my research through various forms of interaction. This course has
taught me various practical applications about using child participation: a) child-
ren consulted must be from diverse backgrounds for representative views, and b)
participation can take shape in many forms such as interviews, games, drama,
and drawing, since children express themselves differently than do adults.
Furthermore, my work is to be “field-informed”, grounded in priorities stem-

ming from our offices in the Global South. Taking this idea one step further,
I will now see to it that my work is child based, i.e. based on the priorities of
children in the areas where World Vision works.
3. Child Rights are not only about the child:

This course has forced me to concretize in clear terms that child rights does
not necessarily imply an individualistic focus on the child. Rather, child rights
and children themselves must be seen in relation to all other actors interacting
with or whose actions have an impact on children including parents, the com-
munity, and the state as the ultimate duty bearer. World Vision’s development
approach also echoes this holistic understanding of child rights as it is centered
on communities, parents, and the child. An example that truly resonated with
me was from a class colleague who explained why bus drivers, who are often in
conflict with their young passengers, must also be aware of children’s rights. In
her community, bus drivers are generally guilty of discriminating against youth
simply due to their age and based on stereotypical behaviour. All those who
interact with children must understand the fundamental principles of the CRC,
including their responsibilities as duty bearers, in order for children’s rights to
be realized.
Complementarily, I have also realized that people’s perceptions of their own

responsibilities and duties regarding issues children face is crucial to the rea-
lization of children’s rights. It is important to understand that the responsibility
does not necessarily lie with the child to realize his or her own rights, but also
with society and the state. This concept was made evident in a lecture given by
Gerison Lansdown on disability. A disabled child should not have to change to
conform to society. Rather, society must adapt to the child. This applies to many
notions within the CRC. I found this concept enlightening.
As such, when I am researching or exploring issues of child exploitation in my

work, I must not only look at how children are affected by this problem with a
view of designing a child-centered solution. I must also look at the roles and
responsibilities of parents, communities, and the state, in the realization of
children’s rights.
4. Considering root causes and global solutions:

This course has also reinforced my belief that in order to deal with a problem
effectively, its underlying causes must be addressed and changed. For instance,
it is imperative that globalization (however you define it) and poverty be treated
as primary forces perpetuating/facilitating the exploitation of children in or-
der to develop lasting solutions. In my work I must consider the trans-border
or international dimensions of these issues and not limit them to one context.
Furthermore, when it comes to the advocacy portion of my work, I must not
only advocate for policy change within one domestic context but within several
countries and also at the international level. International problems require in-
ternational solutions.
5. Raising awareness and offering critical reflection:

Lastly, this new knowledge must not remain with me alone. I will take it upon my-
self to question World Vision’s approaches and to focus on integrating the funda-
mental principles of the CRC in our work. I can share these nuances in meetings,
planning and strategy sessions, conversations with colleagues, and any com-
munications with my advocacy and programming colleagues. I can also increase
exposure to these concepts by introducing them to World Vision’s supporters who
receive information about our work and the issues we are tackling. It is important
for them to know about the fundamental principles of child rights.
Finally, I leave this course with the confidence that I can improve my work and
make a greater positive change in the lives of children. I will endeavor to do so
by ensuring children’s views and opinions are heard and by considering child-
ren within the context of all actors who can have an impact on their lives. All
actors must be engaged for the realization of children’s rights.

Children’s rights in the decision-
making process in civil youth cases
Yolanda Nachtegaele Juvenile judge Antwerp Belgium
In juvenile cases the judging process goes beyond legalistic reasoning. Legal
pragmatism is faced with specific problems when children’s rights are involved.
The judge’s reasoning is as both legal reasoning and practical reasoning. This
text gives a very brief overview of the decision making-process in juvenile cases.
The juvenile judge is during his/her decision-making process bound by the legal
framework within which he/she comes to a legal decision. It can be presented
as follows:1
A
U
F D
A I
C
T
 access procedure reasoning judgement  E
N
S C
E
Facts2
The juvenile judge is bound by the facts brought before him/her. This means
that the reality as such doesn’t exist, as the judge is confronted with the reality
that is within the perspective of the involved parties and as presented by these
parties. The instrument of representing these facts is the language, which is
another narrowing factor in relation to the events. The use of language to repre-
sent the events depends of the person using the language, his/her age, his/her
education, his/her context, etc. The same event can be represented differently
by the father, the mother, the children, the teacher, the therapist etc. The way
in which the judge receives this representation of facts depends also upon the
personality of the judge (education, open-mind,).
1
This model is inspired by the work : WROBLEWSKI J., The judicial application of law.,
Ed. Bankowski, Mc Cormick, Kluwer, 1992, 357 p.
2
OLIVEVRONA K., Law as fact, Ed. Stevens and Sons London, 1971, 320 p.
IVAINER T., L’interprétation des faits en droit, Paris 1988, 361 p.
Access
Access to the legal system is regulated by the Judicial Code. In Belgium process
parties have to have both a capacity and an interest to make a claim (art. 17
Judic. Code). Children under the age of 18 years are considered as not having
the required capacity. They can have access through representation by their
parents. In those cases in which the parents have interests that conflict with
the interests of the child, a guardian has to be nominated by the judge to re-
present the child. Thus the child has indirect access to the legal system. The
CRC3 doesn’t make the difference between direct and indirect access to the
legal procedure.4
In practice this indirect access is almost never used by the children, or by their
lawyers. Can we speak then of a real participation by children? Indirect access
can lead to real participation if communication and assistance are well provi-
ded. The argument that children will be brought into the conflict between their
parents is not valid since these children are already in the middle of this conflict
since they are a member of the family. It is nevertheless important that the
stress on the children will not increase and that the children are provided with
good legal and emotional assistance. Access that exposes the child to extreme
stress and anxiety can’t be in the best interest of the child.
Procedure
During the procedure the involved parties put their arguments forward. The
Law on protection of the child provides that the juvenile judge “has to hear”
every child above the age of twelve years. Although the child can decide not to
come, almost every child comes after having received the summons. Some of
the children prefer not to become more involved in the conflict between their
parents, and other children are happy to have an opportunity to say their thing.
Children who are younger than 12 years “can” be heard by the judge but in prac-
tice this happens only when the child him/herself asks for it (e.g. by a letter) or
if the judge thinks it’s in the best interest of the child to be heard5.
Convention of the Children’s Rights

3
Art. 9.2 CRC “In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all
4
interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and

make their views known.”. Some authors refer to art. 12.2 CRC but this article con-
cerns the hearing during the procedure and not the participation at the moment of
access to the procedure. Nevertheless we can by analogy deduct that indirect repre-
sentation can be accepted as a valid access according the CRC: Article 12.2 CRC pro-
vides explicitly: “ heard,…either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate
body,…”.
E.g..: The other children in the family are older than 12 and will be heard.
5

The law doesn’t provide any regulations concerning the hearing itself of a child.
The hearing is done by the judge him/herself in the presence of the clerk, who
makes a record of the hearing. In what kind of room, how the judge and the
child will sit, and the way of talking with the child…it all depends on the judges’
experience.
Although the law doesn’t prohibit the presence of the child’s lawyer or a trus-
ted representative, it’s almost never been asked for in my experience. As a
judge I can see the advantages for the child in being assisted by a lawyer
or trusted representative because then the child can be prepared as to the
procedure of the hearing (not about the content) and can be helped after the
hearing. I have the experience that children are coming to the hearing with the
wrong expectations. They think they can choose where they can live or how
the arrangement for their housing can be made, by referring to the CRC. They
get frustrated when they hear that the judge is not their lawyer but a judge
who has to balance their rights with parental rights, taking also the context
into account, and has to judge whether what the child wants is also in the best
interest of the child. Afterwards they sometimes have a lot of questions about
the hearing and sometimes they ask for a second hearing. A system of auto-
matically granting legal assistance to the child once he/she wants to be heard
could be in the interest of the child. The question then arises as to whether it
is necessary that the legal assistance be provided during the hearing itself or
if it is only needed during the preparations for the hearing and for assistance
after the hearing. What will be the result of the legal assistance? Will it incre-
ase the stress for the child to become a truly involved party who takes sides?
Is this in the best interest of the child?
Any legal assistance has to be organized by the state in such a way that the pa-
rents or other involved parties can’t influence this legal assistance (legal and
moral and economic independence of the specialized juvenile lawyer). A unified
approach and common guidelines are necessary. Communication between the
juvenile judges and with the bar association and the ministry of justice is neces-
sary.
Another problem is the procedural rules, which are not child-friendly, since
procedures take a lot of time. Nine months are, from the child’s perspective, a
long time. Appointing an expert, regulating the agenda to allow parties to ex-
press their views,takes such a long time that even for adults we can wonder if
these delays are still reasonable.
Reasoning
Within the process of the judge’s legal reasoning we can distinguish 3 different
levels. During the whole reasoning process the legitimation and personality of
the judge are important factors.
1. diagnostic phase
The facts as presented by the parties are filtered by the rules of evidence. The
judge only accepts those facts that are presented by the parties, are proved by
the parties or are accepted as facts by the adverse party. The child has no par-
ticipation in this phase besides the record of the hearing. The hearing itself is
not meant to be a way to prove facts.
2. qualification phase
Once the judge has set out the facts, she/he can begin conceptualize these facts
into legal facts, to read the opinions and arguments of the parties and translate
them to legal points and legal arguments. The judge considers whether the opi-
nions and arguments are valid. The child has an indirect participation in this phase,
since his representative can also advance his or her views on the qualification of
facts. As already mentioned the child is up till now almost never represented.
3. reasoning phase
The legal reasoning that leads to the decision is done by a human being with
his or her own preconceptions and context. Judges are presumed to distance
themselves from their own preconditioned thinking and their own context. To do
so they have to be aware of this. For this reason they never can start from the
idea “would I find this in the best interest if it was my child?”
The approach to judicial education is not a holistic approach to legal reasoning

“an sich”. Neither do we find philosophical aspects concerning the way of re-
asoning by humans (ex. Philosophy of Husserl), or linguistic perspectives (ex.
Wittgenstein, Alexy, Boukema, Mc Cormik, Perelman, Toulmin, Viehweg,…) in
the education of judges. In Belgium the education of a juvenile judge consists
of three-five days education modules. After their nomination judges can follow
some special courses on the material rights of children (ERA, trainings organi-
zed by the government,…). The legal reasoning of juvenile judges is nonetheless
multidisciplinary. In child related cases the judge often has to deal with open
norms so that a dynamic interpretation process is needed.6 When the judge has
to take into account the best interests of the child, he has to be aware of the
pedagogy, psychology, etc. of the child. How else can he/she read the reports
made by the experts and interpret the behavior of the children and parents in
their family setting, etc. ?
During this legal reasoning the judge often has to balance “the best interests of
the child” and the “parental rights”, “guardian rights”, “other children’s rights”
etc. How does he balance this? The ideal is that at the end the judgment is the
only correct judgment for this judge at this moment. As long as he/she has
doubts, his/her reasoning process hasn’t ended. For that reason judges begin
The CRC is itself a Universal framework consisting of a static text (never changed) with
6
a dynamic contextual interpretation.

to refer to standard works in the psychology and pedagogy or if necessary they
appoint an expert to advice the court. An expert adds a lot of cost to the process
parties and takes too much time. Nine months for a child is a lot more time than
for an adult.
The legal reasoning is bound by the sources of the law. The discussion is often
about the direct effect of the CRC. The Belgian Constitution contains an article
that refers to the protection of the right of every child of the respect of moral,
physical, emotional and sexual integrity (art. 22 bis Constitution). In the Civil
Code we find an article referring to the interests of the child: art. 374, 387bis
(parental authority). The judge has to consider the real circumstances, interests
of the child and the parents in his motivation. The principle “best interests of
the child” is not found in legal texts, although it can be accepted as a “principle”
since it is clear that this belongs to the spirit of the law (art. 374, 387bis Civil
Code). The case law is divided about the direct effect and most of the time the
CRC is used as an instrument to interpret the law texts in case of open norms.
More and more judgments are no longer justified just by writing “it is in the best
interests of the child that he will stay with his mother, therefore…”, but are re-
ferring to multidisciplinary research works to explain what they understand to
be the “best interests” of the child. Here there is also a need for a more unified
approach, for example by educating judges on a multidisciplinary way before
and during their term as a juvenile judge. Since the CRC refers to “all claims”
affecting children, this means other judges, and not only juvenile judges, should
be aware of the possible consequences and impact of their judgments in the life
of the involved children.
Judgment
The judgment is the written decision of the judge. This legal act has to fulfill
some conditions7: the names of the judge, clerk, officer, the parties…, the sub-
ject of the claims and the answer to the arguments of the parties, the advice of
the district attorney’s office, the date of the judgment. According to art. 149 of
the Constitution, every judgment has to be motivated.. This motivation has to be
logical and transparent. A good judgment has to have a high degree of accep-
tance by the parties, which is the main issue of the art of judging.
The law doesn’t provide that the name of the children has to be mentioned in
the judgment, although we always do this for reasons of an eventual execution
of the judgment. The judgment is meant to be read by the parties, the other
legal professionals ... the judgment is not written for the child. The language
used in the judgment is not child-friendly language.
7
Art. 780 Judic. Code
Audience8
The judgment in civil cases is sent to the lawyers of the involved parties, and
to the parties themselves. The child doesn’t receive a judgment nor is there
any way of communicating the decision to the child. For these reasons legal
assistance for the child would be appropriate. It isn’t always possible for the
judge to explain him/her self the judgment to the child and the parents will al-
ways present the judgment from their own perspective. If legal assistance were
automatically provided for the child, the child could get an explanation from
her/his legal assistant.
The law texts at international, European, national and regional levels always
emphasize the penal law cases in juvenile matters. It is my experience that at
the level of civil cases a lot of preventive work can be done. Children whose fa-
milies are falling apart, and where no clear framework has been set up in case
problems occur, often become children in protective child care. Since society is
confronted with an increase in families falling apart the number of civil cases
is increasing, which endangers the quality of the legal decision-making. At the
level of the civil juvenile judges the following initiatives can be taken:
– basic and ongoing education of the juvenile judge: multidisciplinarity9, legal
reasoning, knowledge and personal development of the judge
– communication with the actors (bar association, children’s rights organiza-
tions) about the participation of children in the legal process and about legal
and emotional assistance for children
– communication between the juvenile judges concerning the need for a uni-
form approach and methodology.
Ch. Perelman described the receivers of a judgement as “audience”: process parties,

8
professionals, society. Since we are dealing with child related cases we should ask
ourselves if the children also belong to this audience.
Psychological development of the child, pedagogic sciences, sociology (effects of glo-
9
balization, problems of poverty, migration,) and this on a permanent basis to stay in

touch with new research outcomes.

Oral Literature and Human Rights:
Pedagogical and Participatory
Challenges
Mumia geoffrey osaaji Department of Literature – University of Nairobi
Overview
As an Oral Literature teacher, I was motivated to apply for this course by the
need to explore its various genres (classification within the study of Literature)
from a human rights perspective. I intended to learn pedagogical methodolo-
gies and tools that would enable me to interpret human rights as the underlying
sub-text in Oral Literature.
The justification was that many approaches to Literature and by extension, Oral
Literature, do not give a front burner to human rights. While literary commen-
tators, critics and scholars go to great lengths to explain the underlying themes
and stylistic features in literary works, few seek to explain them within the hu-
man rights framework. In literary studies, it is widely understood that Oral Lite-
rature is the Child’s first engagement with speech acts of the human species, in
the form of lullabies and nursery rhymes. Therefore, the role of Oral Literature
in socialising children in many cultures across the world, cannot be gainsaid.
The United Nation’s Convention on the Rights

of the Child
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child (UNCRC), identifies a
child as “every human being below the age of eighteen years, unless under the
law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier” (Art. 1). Embedded in
this convention are four main principles that underpin the rights of the child:
– Non discrimination on the basis of race, language, religion, social, or ethnic
origin, property, political persuasion, disability etc (Art. 2);
– The best interests of the child shall be the a primary consideration in all
actions undertaken in private or public (Art. 3);
– States must ensure to the maximum extent possible, the survival and deve-
lopment of the child (art. 6);
– States shall ensure that the child expresses his views freely on matters af-
fecting him and must be given due weight in accordance with the age and
maturity of the child (Art. 12).
UNCRC is an agreement between states signatory to the convention that formu-
lates the obligations undertaken by those states towards their citizens. States
parties to UNCRC have both negative (they must respect, refrain from), and
positive (they must fulfil, regulate or determine scope) obligations to fulfil. The
three pillars around which the UNCRC is constructed are: Protection, Provision
and Participation.
Oral Literature and the Educational

(pedagogical) rights of the child
The UNCRC binds states to progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity,
commit themselves to the provision of free and quality education to all children
(Art. 28). In Article 29 (d), state parties are bound to ensure that education helps
the child to respect parents, his or her cultural identity, language, values, natio-
nal values of the country, and for civilisations different from his or her own.
Through this course, I have learned to contextualise the pedagogical value of

oral literature within the Human Rights framework, especially with respect to
Art. 9(d). It has been emphasised by researchers that “the study of oral literatu-
re is very important for communities whose cultures were distorted or destroy-
ed by colonialism. Oral literature helps such communities to regain confidence
in themselves, to rediscover their sense of identity, and to re-member their
dismembered cultures. Oral literature, in the form of the narratives described
below, also serves as a medium of education especially for children” (Kabira
and Mutahi, 3).
Within this purview, I am happy to note that children have a right to study their
community’s oral literature and that this must be provided for in the education
curriculum not as an option, but one that is obligatory at basic or primary le-
vel. Oral literature appears to lean towards the ethical perception of UNCRC, in
that it implies awareness that one’s personal acts may have consequences for
others as well as a willingness to answer for these consequences. Which is why
responsibility is constructed as a learning process.
Oral literature and children’s participatory

rights
Participatory rights are about supporting children and young people to chal-
lenge and change structures and systems that harm, exclude or ignore them
(Willows, 2). Article 12 of the UNCRC provides that “states shall ensure to the
child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the right to express those
views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given
due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child”. This is why
children should be seen as active agents rather than passive participants in

adult initiated activities. As children develop, there should be graduated deci-
sion making that enables them to gradually assume independence as autono-
mous agents (Smith, 78). In the narratives analysed here, children are at the
centre of things – initiating action, participating in shaping their destiny and
earning societal recognition for their bravery.
A children’s rights perspective to the

interpretation of oral narratives
From the attached narratives (see appendix i), a number of human rights issues
clearly stand out. For instance, the fact that children are heroes (both boys and
girls) opens me to the reality of Article 12 that spells out their rights to partici-
pate in making decisions that produce positive results for them and their com-
munity. The story (1) of Simbi and Nasikufu is significant because it upholds the
participation of the disabled in normal life as enshrined in Article 23 of UNCRC.
In other words, the oral narratives are not mere entertainment objects in them-
selves, but didactic instruments for socialising children into ‘gradual assump-
tion of their rights of participation and independent decision-making’.
But the key question that arises is this: Since oral narratives were largely per-
formed by adults (grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts, uncles, mothers and fa-
thers) for children, are children being trained to immediately own their rights
as children or to gradually anticipate their future rights as adults? The answer,
perhaps, lies in the fact that the oral narrative is an adult’s way of socialising
children into adult rights, responsibilities and duties. It is not a genre for socia-
lising children to claim or exercise their rights as children.
Violations
While the narratives appear to valorise child heroism, valour, courage, bravery
and cunning, they also bring forth other negative practices, which constitute vi-
olations of children’s rights. For instance, the story (3) of the Daughter of Kararu
gives us a peek into the violation of the following rights of the child: The child’s
right to life (UDHR; UNCRC Art. 37), the right not to be discriminated against on
the basis of gender (UNCRC Preamble; Art. 2), illicit sale or forceful transfer of
children (UNCRC Art. 11), and the right not to be tortured (UNCRC Art. 37).
To this end, this course has also opened my mind to ponder the following
questions in relation to children’s rights, pedagogy and participation:
– Are children competent enough to understand their best interests?
– Can children act competently as co-actors with adults in dialogue about
their best interests?
– Can children as rights bearers act autonomously as duty/ responsibility be-
arers?
The answers to these questions may not come immediately. Which is why the
course is an invaluable experience that gives me the challenge to conduct
more research on oral literature and the ever-growing discourse on children’s
rights.
Appendices
I. ORAL TEXTS
1. Simbi and Nasikufu
This is an oral narrative about a disabled girl, Nasikufu (hunch back), who pro-
ved that she is more intelligent contrary to the widespread perception held by
her family and community. Her beautiful but proud sister, Simbi, gets deceived
and weds an ogre (who planned to devour her and the entire bridal party). It is
Nasikufu, the despised one, who works out a rescue plan that saves them and
Simbi as well, (Kabira and Adagala. Kenya Oral Narratives. pp. 7-15).
2. The story of the Girl and her Mother

In this story, a mother falls sick and is almost dying. When a local medicine
man is consulted, he recommends that the fur from an ogre is the only cure.
The husband is cowardly to face the ogre and the woman is in grave danger of
dying. At this point, her daughter discretely sneaks away to fetch the fur from
the dangerous cannibalistic ogre. Through her ingenuity, she succeeds with the
help of her brother, and this saves their mother’s life (Kabira, Wanjiku and Ka-
rega Mutahi. Gikuyu Oral Literature. 76-81).
3. The daughter of Kararu

A virgin girl is sacrificed to the god of fertility following a prolonged draught that
threatened to destroy an entire community. This followed the advice of a local
diviner. In compensation, the girl’s family is rewarded with cattle and goats as
pride price (Kabira, and Karega 14-17).
4. Children left at the old homestead

A father is advised by a diviner that if he hopes to get more children from his
barren wives, he must kill the two he already has with his first wife. He finds it
difficult and after agonising for a long time, decides to abandon them and move
on to another place. The abandoned children suffer from hunger and diseases
until luck befalls them: a family adopts them. But when the adopted family be-
gins to mistreat them, they are forced to search for their parents. Luckily, they
get them and the re-union is a happy ending to this story (Kabira, The Oral
Artist. 45-49).
II. References
Kabira, Wanjiku and Karega Mutahi. Gikuyu Oral Literature. Nairobi: Heine-
mann, 1988.
Kabira, Wanjiku. The Oral Artist. Nairobi: EAEP, 1983.

Kabira, Wanjiku and Kavetsa Adagala. Kenya Oral Narratives. A Selection. Nai-
robi: Heinemann, 1992.
Children’s Act 2001. The Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 95. Nairobi: Govern-
ment Printer, 2001.
Smith, A.B. “Interpreting and supporting participation rights: Contributions
from sociocultural theory”, in the International Journal on Children’s Rights.
2002. Vol. 10. pp. 73-88
Willows, C. Participation in Practice: Children and Young People as partners in
change. London: Children’s Society. 2002.
Determining the Rights of Children
in the Canadian Context
Nina Prabhu Childcare Resource and Research Unit – Canada
My current professional activities within the Childcare Resource and Research
Unit (CRRU) is to conduct policy research and advocacy. We particularly focus
on early childhood education and care (ECEC) but also explore other issues of
child development and the family (e.g., parental leave and child poverty). The
work we carry out is focused on the child and their rights but also the child
within the family unit and the creation of equitable opportunities for the family.
Our belief is that family well-being (i.e., security, love, good health) often pro-
vides the opportunity for child well-being and creates an avenue for healthy
development.
One of the main goals of our organization is to disseminate information to aca-

demics, practitioners, students and parents internationally. In some countries,
there is a neo-liberal approach towards the provision of ECEC. In many coun-
tries, ECEC is not a core investment by governments and therefore provision
is ad hoc, access is not universal, and quality is extremely variable. A common
justification for the neo-liberal approach to services is that parents are given
the `choice´ of what child care or education is best for their child. However, in
many cases, the choices parents are given is in fact not a choice at all, parents
are not given important information to make informed decisions or they really
do not have options to choose from, and most often, when social services are
left to the market, they are not equitable. In many cases, the consequence of
a misinformed choice is substandard quality of service for children. Our orga-
nization also focuses a lot of our advocacy and research on aspects of quality
because often the focus of education is on accessibility; the focus is on get-
ting education not on what kind of education children are receiving. Research
suggests that poor quality service can be more harmful to children than not
having care at all. By providing information to and from around the world, we,
the ECEC sector, have the opportunity to analyze and learn from countries re-
garding achievements (i.e., universal ECEC in Sweden) and mistakes (i.e., cor-
porate dominance in Australia).
Another goal in our organization’s work is to advocate for gender rights, equity
for women. Around the world a common belief and practice is the placement of
childrearing responsibility with the mother, as identified by Gerison Lansdown
concerning children with disabilities. While advocating for public, quality and
accessible care for children, we are also advocating for equitable opportunities
for women, inside and outside of the home. Although it has been debated, child
care (good quality, affordable, and accessible) increases the opportunity for the
labour force participation of women and also increases the quality of family life

with the reduction of stress therefore potentially increasing the well-being of
children and capacity of parents.
Issues that are related to ECEC and the Canadian context will be critically ex-
plored as reflected upon from the course contents of the past two weeks in the
following paper. This discussion will then be followed by a reflection of possi-
ble changes I will make in my professional future. In my framework, children’s
rights are used from the perspective of indivisibility and in the context of value
and principle.
To begin, my first critical observation has to do with the first topic of discus-
sion, and of course the right in question, the right to education. Although the
right to early childhood education is discussed in the Committee on the Rights
of the Child General Comment No. 7 and is the first of the Education For All
international commitment, it was inherent in the speakers’ presentations and
obvious in the general application of the CRC, that the Right to Education begins
at the primary level. The acknowledgement of early childhood in the general
comment and EFA goals is of course significant; however, the absence of the
recognition of early childhood education in the CRC itself expresses a reduced
value and leaves room for neglect in implementation (i.e, the underdeveloped
ECEC system in Canada). As a reflection of this situation, early childhood edu-
cation is very fragmented and different around the world. Although there are
issues with education in general globally, around the world the quality of ECEC
services being provided, when it is provided, is questionable. Research and the
evaluation of services (e.g., in the United States and United Kingdom) have re-
vealed that poor quality services is a very prevalent problem. There is also plen-
tiful research that identifies the significant improvement in school readiness
in children that attend some form of quality ECEC/ preschool and there is also
research that identifies children are more likely to attend and be successful in
primary school with good quality ECEC.
There was much reflection on my part during the course from an early childhood
perspective but also from a Canadian perspective. There are many examples of
how some of the rights issues discussed (i.e., health, child protection, child
poverty, and migration) are violated in Canada (e.g., lack of resource allocation
and quality of service to children with disabilities, lack of participation/well-
being and discrimination of children in child welfare, assumption of incompe-
tence of poor/immigrant/Indigenous parents, lack of protection of minors). The
greatest violations are to our immigrant and Indigenous communities. When
engaged in discussion with other colleagues, people often commented `Canada
is a wealthy country´ or `Canada has so much research´ and they could not
understand why the examples I discussed were present in Canada (i.e., the pre-
sence of discrimination, lack of ECEC provision). It makes me wonder about the
information people have access to because it seemed to be different than the
truth and reality. I usually respond to people, that like many other countries, our
practice is very different than our theory. It is obvious to me that just because
Canada is considered wealthly, it does mean that all people within its borders
have equitable opportunity. The reality in Canada that I have experienced and
have been guided to see is not very equitable. Furthermore, there is a clear
hierarchy in society, obvious to anyone looking, with white Europeans at the top,
immigrants second, and Indigenous people at the bottom (explicitly evidenced
by Canada’s ‘no’ vote to the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous people). With this hierarchy there is an unequitable distri-
bution and value of rights with the biggest violations relating to the right against
discrimination and the right to identity. From the discussions is this course I
have confirmed that my observations of adverse circumstances of children and
families are in reality a violation of their rights.
Returning back to the discussion in relation to ECEC, I will critically reflect on

the quality of service for children in Canada. Our advocacy and policy informa-
tion often focuses on universal ECEC; however, in the weeks’ discussions I have
been questioning how the service has and is being applied and how it will be
in the future. Education is often standardized and irrelevant to children’s daily
lives and experiences; however, it is applied universally. I fear that if universa-
lization is ever achieved, a normative framework may be imposed onto child-
ren neglecting their individual and familial culture and identities. Our urban
communities are so rich with culture but when children enter the educational
system this richness is most often diluted. In training, practitioners discuss
diversity and the importance of acknowledging diversity but this is very limited
and often ends up in practice as tokenism. Increasingly, more research is being
conducted on parental involvement in programs, which I think is a good start
in valuing children’s identities. Main findings of current practice often suggest
that parents feel, and are treated, as incompetent and their traditional prac-
tices of childrearing are inferior to Western methods, therefore their input is
not valued, again, this is most practiced with immigrant and Indigenous fami-
lies. Furthermore, there is limited communication and initiative to understand
the familial culture and the context of the child’s life. Of course these are not
practices of all practitioners but these are issues that have been continuously
surfacing for quite some time. The lack of time is a common excuse by practi-
tioners but this is no excuse as children often suffer the consequences. I think
the real issue is caring. For example, I worked with a family who did not have
much money in their household because they were recent refugees, they came
from the US where they were illegal and their home had been raided, the fa-
ther detained and deported. The 6 year old daughter and mother were wearing
spring jackets, socks and sandals to walk to school in the middle of winter in
the snow, the teacher did not ‘notice’ this for over a month. I thought about
this experience again this week and wondered How can we foster the holistic
development of children and make sure their rights are met if we don’t know
who they are and where they come from? How can we help each child reach
their potential if we don’t know, see and listen to each child and cater to their
specific needs? I include myself here because I am a part of the society and field
in which this is practiced.
One of the main areas of difficulty in Canada is in relation to Indigenous peop-

les. Canada’s Aboriginal head start programs have been quite successful; ho-
wever, much of the investment ends at 6 years and children are faced with the

same harmful situation and violations of basic rights they are born into, there is
no continuity in support. In urban areas, special programs for Indigenous child-
ren have been created to try to give them an environment that is traditional,
grouping them all together neglecting the many differences within and creating
significant safety issues (e.g., children have many psychological issues that are
not dealt with). I have realized from discussions that as a result of not knowing
how to respond and guilt, the government has placed the Right to Identity over
other rights; however, this situation is actually more harmful to children. Most
significantly, it is segregating these children from the society in which these
particular families have tried to integrate within, therefore emphasizing their
differences but at the same time oppressing their culture. It also removes the
opportunities for all young children, in and outside of the programs, to learn
about and respect each others’ cultures. It is further emphasizing the diffe-
rence of this group without promoting understanding. Intolerance is nurtured.
Within my organization, we do not actively collaborate with partners to engage
in Aboriginal focused research. We understand it is a complicated situation to
address so we limit involvement.
In the immediate sense, I think the most important thing I can take back to my
organization is critical thinking. Practices, norms and rights that are used to
develop programs and strategies need to be questioned. Although this is so-
mething I already practice, it has been reinforced and new questions have been
raised. I will try to learn more about Aboriginal and immigrant focused child-
ren’s groups in order to understand and help their fight for equity and rights and
maybe look more into finding ways to ensure children’s rights and well-being
is being met. I will like to focus more on multicultural/inclusive programs for
children in Canada and research more into ways of social inclusiveness and
celebrating differences. I would like to look more into the types of segregated
and inclusive programs in my urban area; those implemented effectively, and
those not. I would like to take the next step in some of the new research with
parent involvement specifically, to explore ways that parents and practitioners
can interact without undermining families’ traditional means of childrearing
and building on their capacities while also finding simple ways that practitio-
ners can interact with families to learn more about the cultural lives of children.
Most significantly for me, I would also like to do more research into the barri-
ers faced by the ‘working poor’ and marginalized families. Programs are often
targeted at low-income families; however, increasingly families that have two
working partners have greater struggles than single-income families as they
have very limited extra income after meeting basic needs, but in addition, they
do not have the government assistance that other lower-income families have.
In most cases, immigrants and newcomers fill this group as they often work in
lower wage jobs and do not have the support of extended families. Also, I would
like to further explore the challenges and realities that immigrant families face
in the Canadian education system.
Overall, I think I have gained a greater understanding of children’s rights, most

significantly in the legal aspect of which I was not familiar, but at the same
time, I have many more things to think about. I have gained insight and learned
so much and without a doubt I am confident that children’s rights advocacy will
always be a part of the work that I do both with individuals and in the wider
society. I will continue to advocate for greater investment in early childhood ini-
tiatives, as I strongly believe that experiences in early childhood are significant
in determining the quality of life for the rest of one’s life.

International course on
Children’s Rights in a Globalized
world: From Principles to Practice
Maaike Stolte International Child Support (ICS) – The Netherlands
Children’s rights in child poverty eradication

strategies
International Child Support (ICS) works in support of communities in South
East Asia and East Africa with the aim to realize the right to quality education
for all children. In a participatory process of causal analysis ICS facilitates the
assessment of the specific obstacles for children to realize this right. The first
step is to discuss with the main stakeholders around a school-catchment area
(including local government and children) what their understanding is of quality
education and access to education for all children. Secondly they identify the
priority obstacles to the realization of quality of and access to education in the
areas of education, child protection, health, hiv/aids and livelihood. Thirdly they
identify the responsibilities of the duty bearers and the gaps in their capacity
to fulfil their responsibilities. The duty bearers together develop an action plan
to address these capacity gaps which is sealed in a social contract. ICS has re-
served a certain budget for each school catchment area for the implementation
of their action plan.
From the presentation of Pupavac1 I took the notion that the CRC and the imple-
mentation of the CRC has a strong stand in addressing the social rights, but not
in the realization of material rights, i.e. the realization of article 27. I agree that
in many of the development initiatives aimed at the poorest households, the
focus is on their right to have access to services and not on sustainable income
development. The question was even asked if there has to be a certain level
of economic development before we can work on the realization of children’s
rights. This provoked me to think on the prioritization of rights; is the right to
life, survival and development the most important one?
In our work we realize more and more that for a sustainable realization of sup-
port structures for children (toward the realization of their right to education
but also in the areas of protection and health), the communities need to have a
sustainable source of income. Many of the current income generating activities
1
Pupavac, V., Constructing and reconstructing childhood: tensions between univer-
salism and relativism in global policy. Presentation at ICCR, Antwerp, 16 September
2008
are not sustainable, do not generate sufficient income and/or livelihood impro-
vements and do not always reach the poorest households. ICS is investigating
the link between social change and economic development through the deve-
lopment of longer term socio-economic development initiatives, looking at how
families and communities can be supported directly to realize the right to an
adequate standard of living and if they do not have sufficient capacities to do so,
how the state can take its responsibility to provide social security to the most
vulnerable households. The right to an adequate standard of living is indicated
in the CRC in article 27 and 26:
Art 27
1. States parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living ade-
quate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social develop-
ment.
2. The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the primary responsi-
bility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions
of living necessary for the child’s development.
3. States parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their me-
ans, shall take appropriate measures to assist parents and others respon-
sible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide
material assistance and support programs, particularly with regard to nu-
trition, clothing and housing.
Art 26
1. States parties shall recognize for every child the right to benefit from social
security, including social insurance, and shall take the necessary measures
to achieve the full realization of this right in accordance with their national
law.
In his opening speech Verhellen2 mentions the pre-amble to the CRC where it is
stated clearly that the state is responsible to provide assistance to the family in
their support to the realization of the rights of their children and the importance
of international cooperation where the state is not capable to do this only by its
own means. ICS falls within this international cooperation through our direct
support to communities but we also lobby our government to ensure that their
international development support is in accordance with children’s rights.
I’d like to elaborate on 2 topics regarding the connection between economical

development and children’s rights. The first one is on how ICS can support the
connection between children’s rights and economic development. The second
one is a discussion on how we can use art 27 and 26 as starting points for dis-
cussion.
Verhellen, E., Why are we so interested in Children’s Rights? Historical Perspective.

2
Consequences and Reflections on the CRC. Presentation at ICCR, Gent 9 September

2008

1. Economic development and children’s rights
Economic development through profit making investments is indirectly a rea-
lization of the right to an adequate standard of living for the households that
gain an increased income from the investments. The issue with profit making
investments is that often the poorest households do not benefit from these in-
vestments and it is a challenge to prevent child rights violations within econo-
mic enterprises.
In various presentations, we learned that one effect of this globalizing world is

that even if there is positive economic growth in Africa, the gap between rich
and poor people and countries is widening and there is insufficient attention
to channel resources directly to children’s issues in public policy to ensure
that children do benefit from this economic growth. Through international in-
vestments in economic development without considering human or children’s
rights, communities and countries have opened up to international economic
agents who are no signatories to human rights treaties. According to Mestrum3
the World Bank has recently introduced human rights to its policies, but other
interstate organizations like the IMF state that this is not applicable to them.
She also states that many multinational commercial corporations have incor-
porated a human rights policy but have not stated that they can be held ac-
countable to the possible violations of human rights in their actual work. Even
international NGOs focusing on the generation of income and thus poverty re-
duction, often do not operate with a human rights principle to their work.
In different situations it is well known that commercial corporations do not have

human rights as an interest, let alone children’s rights. Experience shows that
there are large bilateral road development programs where children were re-
cruited to contribute to the work. There are examples of smaller income gene-
ration activities where children were taken out of school to support the genera-
tion of income. Also in many income generation activities, the program focuses
on the man of the household deciding on how the generated income was spent
and in most cases the realization of the rights of children was not taken into
consideration.
ICS realizes that we need to look with a broader, more sustainable focus to the
development of income (of the individual household and the community) to re-
ally break the cycle of poverty. ICS aims to develop a strategy that strengthens
the link between social development for the realization of children’s rights and
large scale economic development in our program areas. The strategy invol-
ves connecting entrepreneurs who are interested in longer term commercial
investments (i.e. jatropha growing in areal lands in Tanzania), with community
and government structures that focus on social development. ICS is investiga-
ting possibility to invest in commercial developments on the condition that a
3
Mestrum, F., Globalisation, poverty and children’s rights. Presentation at ICCR, Ant-
werp 16 September 2008
certain percentage of the profit is structurally re-invested in the community to
provide for social security and support to services like education and health.
One of the challenges will be to gain a commitment from the entrepreneurs and
the community to incorporate prevention of child rights violations in the com-
mercial investment and to ensure that the return on the investments from ICS
and the community in the corporation is used to realize rights of children. Here
the state should take a strong role to ensure that children’s rights are not viola-
ted. To incorporate this in the strategy ICS is developing, we need to learn more
from the work of Koen de Feyter4, Amnesty International, Child Watch and the
network for social entrepreneurs. We also need to investigate interesting initi-
atives that are taking place at this moment to keep the World Bank and other
international companies accountable for human rights violations to see what
we can learn for our own discussion and negotiations with the entrepreneurs.
In cases where households are not capable to participate in the economic deve-
lopments to generate their own income or contribute to the community income,
ICS has to investigate how we can support these households in claiming their
right to social security. States that have signed human rights treaties have an
obligation to support families with a certain level of social security (art 26). In
the international development world, an interest has grown for the develop-
ment of structural implementation of social protection targeted at vulnerable
children. Western donor countries and UN organizations are making bilateral
agreements with governments in the south to implement social protection pro-
grams. The NGO sector can support these initiatives with the implementation of
a structure of assessment of the situation of vulnerable groups, disbursement
of social cash grants and the monitoring of the use of the funds. This is a good
example of where the international community can support governments in the
realization of right to a standard of living (CRC art. 27) through the provision of
social cash grants (CRC art. 26).
Within ICS we will investigate how far governments are in the implementation
of social protection programs and how we can support the children in these
areas to claim their right to this service and how we can support the implemen-
tation of this service.
2. Using children’s rights as a starting point for discussion

Archard5 states that the according of rights reflects a conviction that there are
liberties and interests so basic that every society should secure them irrespec-
tive of its traditions, history or level of economic development. Roose6 argues
that children’s rights should be seen as a starting point for dialogue. Pupavac1
Feyter, K. De. Introduction to Globalisation and Poverty. Presentation at ICCR, Ant-

4
werp, 16 September 2008

Archard, D., Philosophical Perspective. Presentation at ICCR, Gent, 8 September 2008
5
6
Roose, R., Educational Perspective. Presentation ICCR, Gent, 8 September 2008

underlines this argument by stating that the CRC is build upon an ideal image
of a childhood in a European/American setting.
With the aim to build children’s rights into economical development, a dis-
cussion is necessary on what the perception is of childhood in the context of
ICS program areas and more specifically what it means for a child to have a
standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and
social development. I agree with Roose that using the rights of the child as a
starting point implies a shift from a focus on the implementation of the rights
of the child towards a discussion on the meaning of rights of the child in its
societal context.
Especially in the area of working on economic development ICS as an outside

organization, although working only with national staff, has to make sure that
the community is interested and committed to discuss what they see as an ade-
quate standard of living for their children and how we can achieve this. The
presentation by the members of the ATD Fourth World Movement7 has provi-
ded me with the insight that we have to work with an approach to strengthen
the respect that poor populations have for their way of living (in all aspects) in
harsh conditions and the love and care they provide their children with, even if
their situation forces them to make difficult decisions for their children. The
presentation by Liebel8 made me think that we have to invest in getting a good
understanding from the communities in ICS program areas to understand their
perception of childhood which might be very different from the starting point of
the CRC.
ICS has a long standing experience of working in a participatory process with
children, parents, community members and government representatives to ad-
dress the obstacles to the realization of the right to education for children. Now
ICS will have to use these experiences in developing strategies of discussing
also with the entrepreneurs as a ‘new’ stakeholder in the group.
So I will use my learning’s from these 2 very interesting weeks, to strengthen

the child rights focus of ICS that we have used so far towards the realization of
the right to education, in the realization to the right to an adequate standard of
living.
7
Breen, H., Van. Poverty Dimensions. Presentation at ICCR, Antwerp, 16 September
2008
8
Liebel, M., Working Children’s Movement. Presentation at ICCR, Antwerp, 18 Septem-
ber 2008
International course on
Children’s Rights in a Globalized
world: From Principles to Practice
Arnie C. Trinidad Psychosocial Support and Children’s Rights Resource
Center – Quezon City, Philippines
The Work that I do

Over these years, I have used children’s rights as the framework for all my
research projects–children’s rights being the principal framework that the or-
ganization I work for espouses.
However, using the same framework and interacting with people from the same
network of NGOs, government, and academic institutions for long periods could
predispose one to stasis or stagnation of ideas or practices. There is the ten-
dency to confirm each other’s views, be stuck to the same area of study for a
long time since you have become the “expert” on the topic, or use the same
theoretical frames and handles over and over again.
Englundh perfectly captures this situation when she characterizes some child
rights workers as having the attitude, “That is what we already do.” The attitude
offers resistance to change and improvement to one’s practice and ideas. This
is a common problem faced by practitioners who have done work on an issue
for long periods of time. While one may have the episteme and techne, the
person may be lacking in phronesis that could hamper him or her from “broa-
dening [his or her] perspectives” and even pose hurdles to the development of
“intrinsic motivation.”
This course has been valuable to me because it has allowed me the opportunity
to critically reflect on my understanding and practices as a researcher on child-
hoods and children’s issues. More importantly, it has exposed me to various
perspectives and lenses through the interdisciplinary nature of the course and
the participation of lecturers and participants from the world over who bring
with them their wealth of experiences and knowledge. The course has also al-
lowed me to become more sensitive to the tensions and debates surrounding
childhoods and the CRC not only in my part of the world but others as well. It
has also helped me to be conscious of issues that I do not normally encounter
at work.
1
Englundh, Elizabeth. 2008. “Four Levels of Implementation of the CRC: Problems and
Challenges. PowerPoint Lecture. 10 September.

In this paper, I discuss some preliminary reflections and elucidations on the
ideas that piqued my intellectual curiosity. Specifically, I discuss how globaliza-
tion and the UN CRC increasingly clash and create tensions with “local” child-
hoods. I also discuss the directions I may want to further take with my research
work on childhoods and children’s issues.
Global and Local Childhoods: The Tensions

Within
There is little argument that childhood is largely shaped by the particular con-
text the child grows up in (the idea of childhood as a social construct). However,
certain factors such as the increasing globalization of the world are also contri-
buting to making childhood a universal experience. Children’s unprecedented
exposure to more dominant cultures (via the media, travel, and the increasing
political and socioeconomic integration of the world) is definitely playing a role
in the universalization of certain aspects of childhood. The framing of the UN
CRC and the subsequent ratification of this instrument by Nation States has
also profoundly influenced this.
In the last few decades, the world has seen increasing focus on the rights of
children across nations. The ratification of the UN CRC has made the provision
of survival, developmental, protection, and participation rights a collective goal
for all signatory States. This drive has had positive impact on the lives of child-
ren, particularly those from undeveloped and developing nations. However, it
must be noted that there is still much to be done in terms of truly making the
provision of the rights a truly universal experience for all children.
Moreover, while there have been positive outcomes, the ratification of the rights
has also served as a double-edged sword as they continually create tensions
within and across societies that have ratified the Convention. The tensions have
to do with the collective clashing with the particular, the local with the univer-
sal, and the Western with the non-Western.
One of the more fertile sources of tension has to do with some provisions of the
UN CRC clashing with cultural practices of societies that have ratified the Con-
vention. This has called to question the universality and immutability of some
of the rights enshrined in the UN CRC. For instance, the UN CRC has come
to blows with issues like Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). It has also sparked
debates about child work and what the ideal childhood is. Practitioners have
asked when does child labor begin and when does child work end? People from
developing nations do not necessarily equate all forms of child work with child
2
Lieten, Kristoffel. No Date. “Tradition, Globalization, and Child-Centredness.” Foun-
dation for International Research on Working Children.
labor given that the socioeconomic context of the child may actually necessitate
the child to work and the cultural context of the children make children feel
better about themselves when they are able to help their families economically.
Given these, are the ideal childhood, the standards with which to gauge what
the ideal childhood is, and the transformation of the UN CRC principles into
concrete action very much based on Western standards, as some academics
and practitioners from non-Western countries have pointed out?
Interestingly, the CRC has been now and again accused of being more reflec-
tive of Western traditions, values, and practices (which are passed of as uni-
versal cultures as some claim). This has spawned resistance because the UN
CRC is seen by some as an imposition of the standards of the hegemonic, more
economically affluent, and culturally ascendant blocs. It must be pointed out,
however, that scholars and practitioners from developing countries had been
very active in the framing of the Convention. But this has not been spared from
criticism as many of these scholars and practitioners are said to have been
educated in Western schools and thus still reflect the values, traditions and
practices of the West. Needless to say, the terrain is fraught with numerous
ideological and political considerations. This is not helped by the fact that these
deal with ingrained practices and habits (i.e. Bourdieu’s idea of the habitus) and
historical experiences, which make it all the more difficult to deal with.
The tension is exacerbated by the postcolonial age, the politics of identity, and
cultural fidelity. For instance, identity and culture have now and then been mi-
sused to argue for the watering down or denial of the provision and protection
rights of children such as the issue of children’s participation, a practice that is
anathema to many patriarchal cultures. In a large way, we could see this as re-
lated to people’s reification of culture where people fail to realize that cultures,
cultural practices, and even identities are constantly evolving.
Also related to the previous discussions, migration has also become a source
of tension as people increasingly move and make their lives in different places
where they find their practices clashing, sometimes, violently, with the cultural
practices of their host societies (i.e. religious practices, corporal punishment,
etc.). While the CRC states that they have the right to their identity, beliefs and
cultural practices, some of these practices may be contradictory to the rights
of children or at least how the host societies interpret these rights to be. Unfor-
tunately, little dialogue may be happening between the migrants and the host
societies because often the migrants, all the more the irregular migrants, are
relegated to the peripheries of these societies. Host societies have been known
to deny access to basic services such as education and healthcare to irregular
migrants because they are not citizens – sometimes they are considered non-
beings – and therefore do not deserve any entitlement.
The provision of these rights are also compromised by socioeconomic (e.g.

class positions, personal poverty, lack of State resources, etc.), political (e.g.
neoliberalism vs. Keynesianism, war, political will, etc), and natural (e.g. natu-
ral disasters) factors that have become extremely complex in the age of globa-
lization. These factors, in a very large way, influence the degree to which these

rights are afforded to children.
Perhaps, there are really no hard and set ways to translate some of the princi-
ples enshrined in the UN CRC into practice. The answers to the foregoing ques-
tions will always necessarily be anchored on the socioeconomic and cultural
context where the CRC is being implemented. And thus, although the principles
may be universal, there are various ways that these principles could be trans-
lated into action.
Future Directions and Intentions

As researchers and practitioners, it is essential to be sensitive to these tensions
because these often either contribute to the compromising or the preservation
of the well-being of children. The discussions in the course have opened up a
number of these tensions. As a researcher, it would be good to further contri-
bute to the surfacing of some of these tensions. While the course has provided
a theoretical base, there is a lot to be done in terms of seeing these theoretical
bases in practice.
In the Philippines, there are still numerous gaps in terms of research on the
tensions brought on by globalization, migration, and to certain extent, structu-
ral issues that affect the well-being of Filipino children, not only in the country
but also elsewhere.
Few studies, for instances, have been conducted on how globalization and mi-
gration have been contributing to the shift in identities of young Filipinos. How
are migrant Filipino children (born to Filipino parents either in the Philippines
but brought to host countries and those born in the host countries by regular
and irregular migrants) living and negotiating their identities in societies like
Europe or other host societies and how is this affecting their rights to their own
cultural identity and their integration in their society? How do Filipino child-
ren born to irregular migrants cope in their host societies? How is increased
contact with dominant cultures affecting parents and children’s views on the
participation rights of children vis-à-vis their own cultural practices? How is
participation increased in a culture like the Philippines where parens patriae
dominates and how does one address this?
How are Structural Adjustment Programs called for by international lending

agencies such as the IMF and World Bank especially during times of economic
volatility affecting children? How are the views of children and parents on child
work/labor influenced by socioeconomic and cultural factors?
These are some of the preliminary research questions that the program has
provoked me to think about. However, there is still uncertainty as to the possi-
bility of carrying these out considering that I live in a developing country, where
researchers are often hostage to the research demands of donor agencies and
where there is little time to do research, one is really interested to pursue, out-
side work hours since you have to keep to the research projects commissioned.
by donors. This makes the sphere of one’s research options limited; however,
I am sure that the other discussions in the course will enrich my work-related
researches.

Biographies and
contact Details
List of personal details speakers

ARCHARD David
UK – University of Lancaster, Department of Philosophy
David Archard is Professor of Philosophy and Public Policy at the University of
Lancaster. He has also taught at the Universities of Ulster and St Andrews. He is
the author of several books and numerous articles in applied moral philosophy,
including Children: Rights and childhood 2nd edition (2004), and Children, Fa-
mily and the State (2003). He is the co-editor of The Moral and Political Status
of Children (2002)
BEQUELE Assefa
Ethiopia – African Child Policy Forum
Dr. Assefa Bequele is an Ethiopian national with considerable experience in uni-
versity teaching (USA and Ethiopia) and long years of service in the United Na-
tions system (Geneva, Asia and Africa). Devoted to the promotion of the rights
and welfare of children, specifically the progressive elimination of child labour
and the protection of working children, Dr. Bequele was responsible for the
design and development of the ILO’s International Programme on the Elimina-
tion of Child Labour (IPEC), the world’s premier technical programme on child
labour and the development of the ILO’s new Convention on the Worst Forms of
Child Labour. He is currently the Executive Director of The African Child Policy
Forum and a member of the African Committee of Experts on the Rights of the
Child of the African Union.
Biographies and contact Details – 73

BISSELL Susan
Italy – UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence
Dr. Susan Bissell is currently posted as the Chief of the Implementing Interna-
tional Standards Unit, at the Innocenti, UNICEF’s International Research Cen-
tre (IRC) in Florence, Italy. She transferred more than four years ago, from
her position as UNICEF’s Child Protection Chief in India. A native of Canada
and doctor of public health and medical anthropology, Susan served for twelve
years with UNICEF in South Asia (India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka), and has
also worked with UNICEF in Lesotho, Nairobi, and New York headquarters. Of
Canadian origin, she is a specialist in the fields of children’s rights, child labour,
trafficking, children in armed conflict, juvenile justice, and a range of other
‘protection’ concerns. D. Bissell’s academic background ranges from interna-
tional relations, to economics and human rights law, and she has a number of
published articles on related subjects
BLENGIO VALDES Mariana

Uruguay – University of the Republic, Montevideo
Mariana Blengio Valdes is professor and guest professor at several universities.
She is a Professor in Human Rights at the University of the Republic, Montevi-
deo and the Chairholder of the UNESCO Chair in Human Rights of that same
University. She is also Director of the Human Rights Review. She’s a member
of the Editorial Staff of the Public Law and Human Rights Review, the Capitulo
Uruguay del Instituto Iberoamericano de Derecho Constitucional, the Public and
Academic Center in Uruguay (CEDEP) and Founding Member of the Educators
Movement for Peace (ONG). She has published several books and CD-Roms.
Besides that, she won 2 awards by taking part in competitions.
BUDDE Rebecca
Germany – European Masters in Children’s Rights,
Freie Universität Berlin
Rebecca Budde is a cultural scientist. She has worked intensively on migration
issues, in particular on undocumented migration. She coordinates the Euro-
pean Network of Masters in Children’s Rights (www.enmcr.net) and the Euro-
pean Master in Childhood Studies and Children’s Rights which is offered at the
Freie Universität Berlin in cooperation with several partner universities across
Europe. Currently she is working on her PhD, in which the effect of Higher Edu-
cation/Qualification in Children’s Rights is evaluated.
CRIMMENS David
UK – University of Lincoln, School of Health & Social Care
David Crimmens is the Principal Lecturer at the School of Health & Social Care,
University of Lincoln. He has worked for over 20 years with children and young
people on adventure playgrounds, playgroups, street corners and psychiatric
units, as well as in youth justice and residential care. He now works in higher
education as a teacher and researcher. His primary interests are in marginality

and social exclusion. His most recent publications are in children’s rights and
participation and Residential Child Care. He is a member of the editorial group
of the European Journal of Social Work.
DE FEYTER Koen
Belgium – University of Antwerp, Faculty of Law
Koen De Feyter holds the Chair of International Law at the University of Ant-
werp. He is the spokesperson of the Law and Development Research Group
University of Antwerp and the coordinator of the International Network on Lo-
calising Human Rights and coordinator of the Institute of Flemish Foreign Po-
licy. Koen De Feyter is the author of Human Rights. Social Justice in the Age
of the Market (London, Zed Books, 2005) and of World Development Law (Ant-
werp, Intersentia, 2001).
DE SOETE Geert
Belgium – Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences,
Ghent University
Since 1999 Geert De Soete has served as the Dean of the Faculty of Psycho-
logy and Educational Sciences of Ghent University. He is also a member of
the Board of Directors and of the Executive Committee of Ghent University.
De Soete serves on the Board and Management Committee of the Ghent Uni-
versity Hospital.
D’HONDT Sarah
Belgium – National Commission for the Rights of the Child
Sarah D’hondt has a PhD in migration and family law. Since May 2007, she is the
Chair of the National Commission for the Rights of the Child, an official human
rights body where governmental and non-governmental organisations meet to
discuss and find solutions for the remaining problems regarding the realisation
of children’s rights in Belgium.
ENGLUNDH Elizabeth
Sweden – Freelance Child’s Rights Consultant
Elizabeth Englundh has a degree of doctor of Philosophy. Her subject was “In-
ternational Law on Children: National Obligation – Regional Learning”. She
worked for several organizations such as Save the Children Sweden, The Of-
fice of the Swedish Children´s Ombudsman, The County Council of Sörmland,
The Office of the Children´s Ombudsman in Uppsala. She has also done a lot
of lectures about the CRC (Children’s Rights Council ) and the implementation
of children’s rights in municipalities (political level, for the administration, in
schools, preschools, social workers and others). She still lectures, educates
and leads processes in child right matters. She has written several publications
and conference papers.

HANSON Karl
Switzerland – Institut Universitaire Kurt Bösch
Karl Hanson is associate professor in public law with a specialisation in child-
ren’s rights at the Children’s Rights Unit, University Institute Kurt Bösch (IUKB)
in Sion, Switzerland. He has been involved in the setting up and coordination of
and teaching in the Master of Advanced Studies in Children’s Rights (MCR), an
interdisciplinary postgraduate programme jointly organised by IUKB and the
University of Fribourg Switzerland, as well as in the Master interdisciplinaire en
droits de l’enfant (MIDE), a graduate programme launched in September 2008
at IUKB. Between 1993 and 2002, he has worked as a researcher at the Child-
ren’s Rights Centre and as a senior researcher at the Human Rights Centre,
both at Ghent University, Belgium. His publications and main research interests
include human rights applied to children’s rights, juvenile justice, children’s
rights and international development – including the debate on working child-
ren and child labour – and interdisciplinarity in children’s rights research and
higher education.
JANSON Staffan
Sweden – Scientific Advisor to the Swedish Academy for
the Rights of the Child
Staffan Janson is a Swedish paediatrician, an associate professor of paediatrics
and professor of public health. He has been an expert on child abuse and child
injuries to the Swedish government and to the European Council. Since 2007
he is the scientific advisor to the Swedish Academy of Children’s rights. He has
wide experience from work abroad, particularly from developing preventive he-
alth care and rehabilitation in Jordan and in Palestinian refugee camps.
KABASINSKAITE Dale
Lithuania – Mykolas Romeris University
Dale Kabasinskaite is and Assistant Professor at Mykolas Romeris University,
Lithuania. The area of her academic and practice activities covers the rights of
the child to suitable alternative care. She have been working in governmental
working groups on elaborating Child Welfare Policy, Standards for Child Care
Institutions and Strategy of Reform of State Child Care. She is also involved in
the promotion of children’s rights at the EU level by representing the University
at European networks of children’s rights.
LANSDOWN Gerison
UK – International Children’s Rights Consultant, Vice-Chair UNICEF
Gerison Lansdown is an international children’s rights consultant and has pu-
blished and lectured widely on the subject of children’s rights. She was actively
involved in the drafting of the UNCRPD on behalf of children with disabilities.
She is currently vice-chair of UNICEF-UK, an associate of the International In-

stitute for Child Rights and Development in Victoria, and co-director of CRED-
PRO, an international initiative to develop child rights educational programmes
for professionals working with children.
LEMMENS Paul
Belgium – Catholic University of Leuven
Paul Lemmens is a judge at the Council of State (supreme administrative court)
of Belgium. He teaches international human rights law at the Catholic Univer-
sity of Leuven. Previously he also taught civil procedure and constitutional law.
His research focuses on the European Convention on Human Rights. He is cur-
rently a member of the National Commission for the Rights of the Child.
LEYE Els
Belgium – International Centre for Reproductive Health, Ghent Univer-
sity
Els Leye has a master’s degree in Social and Cultural Welfare Studies and ob-
tained her PhD in Comparative Sciences of Culture at the Ghent University. She
has a year-long expertise in the field of sexual and gender-based violence, and
more specifically of female genital mutilation (FGM). She is co-founder of the
European Network for the Prevention of Harmful Traditional Practices, actively
involved in policy making on FGM in Belgium and is coordinating several inter-
ventions for FGM prevention in Africa.
LIEBEL Manfred
Germany – European Master in Children’s Rights,
Free University of Berlin
Dr. Manfred Liebel is a former Professor of Sociology at the Technical University
of Berlin and is a member of the International Academy at the Free University
of Berlin. He mainly works on international and intercultural research on child-
hood and youth. Currently, he is the scientific director of the European Network
of Masters in Children’s Rights (ENMCR).
LIETEN Kristoffel
The Netherlands – University of Amsterdam, Chair of Child
Labour Studies and IREWOC
Kristoffel Lieten is a development sociologist at the University of Amsterdam
where he occupies the chair of Child Labour Studies. He is also the director of
IREWOC (Institute for Research on Working Children) and has published a num-
ber of books and articles on child labour, agency, and child rights. His latest
book is “Children, Structure and Agency. Field Realities Across the World.” With
his team of researchers, he presently works on child labour and education and
on the worst forms of child labour in Asia and Latin America.

LOMMEE Elisabeth
Belgium – CBAR (Belgian Committee for Aid to Refugees)
Elisabeth Lommée (born in Bruges, 1978) completed her law studies at the uni-
versities of Namur (FUNDP, Candidate, 1999), Pavia (Erasmus, 2002) and Leu-
ven (KUL, Lic. Jur., 2002) and holds a degree in Criminology (KUL, 2006). From
2003 to 2006 she was a member of the Leuven bar, working as an attorney
specializing in family and juvenile law. In 2007 she did voluntary work in and
around Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for the non-governmental organization “Vlaams
Internationaal Centrum” and the Human Rights Organization “Projeto Legal”.
Upon her return, she worked as a researcher on the “Minors and Migration”
research project of the University of Antwerp (August 2008). Currently, she is
working at CBAR, a non-governmental organization, partner of UNHCR, assist-
ing immigrants seeking asylum.
MATTHES Jens
Switzerland – Unicef Geneva
Jens Matthes is Chief of the UNICEF Geneva Child Rights Advocacy and Edu-
cation Section, supporting 36 UNICEF National Committees in industrialised
countries in Europe, North America, Asia and the Pacific in their advocacy and
rights awareness work. Prior to this assignment, he has worked in Child Pro-
tection programmes in UNICEF country offices in Pakistan, Bosnia & Herze-
govina, Southern Sudan, the UNICEF Regional Office for Eastern and Southern
Africa, and Rwanda. He is a lawyer by training with a specialisation in juvenile
justice and criminology.
MESTRUM Francine
Belgium – Ghent University and Université Libre de Bruxelles
Francine Mestrum is professor at the University of Ghent and lecturer at the
Université Libre de Bruxelles. She is a social scientist and her main research
topics are globalisation, development, poverty, inequality and gender. She is
secretary-general of the Association européenne pour la defense des droits de
l’homme (AEDH/FIDH) and a member of the International Council of the World
Social Forum.
MYERS Lisa
Switzerland – NGO Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child
Lisa Myers is the Coordinator of the NGO Group for the Convention on the
Rights of the Child. She joined the NGO Group in 2005. She has a BSc in Ex-
perimental Psychology from the University of Sussex (UK) and a Masters in
Development Studies from the Graduate Institute of Development Studies
(Switzerland). Lisa has also worked with children (including street children
and refugee children) and issues related to them in China, Guatemala, the UK
and Switzerland.


PUPAVAC Vanessa
UK – University of Nottingham
Vanessa Pupavac is a Lecturer in the School of Politics and International Rela-
tions, University of Nottingham. She trained as a lawyer in the UK and has pre-
viously worked as a consultant for the United Nations. She has published widely
on international aid policy, in particular on global therapeutic governance. In
2003 she was awarded the Otto Klineberg Award for International Relations.
REYNAERT Didier
Belgium - University College Ghent
Didier Reynaert holds a bachelor in child nursing and a master in special edu-
cation (orthopedagogics). Previously, he worked for the Flemish Children’s
Rights Coalition, the Child Legal Centre and as a civil servant at the Minis-
try of the Flemish Community on child protection. In 2005 he started working
at the Children’s Rights Centre of the Ghent University on an interdisciplinary
research project “Human Rights of Children”. Currently, he prepares a Ph.D.
in Social Work/Social Pedagogy at the University College Ghent on children’s
rights education and the children’s rights movement.
ROOSE Rudi
Belgium – Ghent University and Free University Brussels
Rudi Roose studied educational sciences and criminology. He is a senior re-
searcher at the department of Social Welfare Studies, Ghent University and as-
sociate professor at the department of Criminology, Free University Brussels.
SAURI Gerardo
Mexico – Mexican Network on Children’s Rights
Gerardo Sauri is the Director of the Mexican Network on Children’s Rights. He
is a pedagogue from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).
Since 2001 he is the Executive Director of the Children’s Rights Network in
Mexico, which is a coalition of 65 Mexican NGOs of thirteen states of the country.
For more than 15 years he worked with street children’s in Mexico; he was one
of the founders of EDNICA (Education with Street Children) where he was the
director and president of the board. From this experience he published several
documents related with this topic.
Since 1996 he has been advocating to accomplish the Children’s Right Conven-
tion in public policies and legislation. He coordinated different networking ef-
forts and has participated in several researches, publications and events about
children at both national and international levels, on issues such as: working
children, street children, sexual commercial exploitation, children protagonism
and participation, juvenile justice, legal frameworks, public policies for child-
ren, etc.

He has developed a broad experience on using indicators to promote children’s
rights, coordinating in Mexico the Children in North America Project. He is a
member of the International Society of Child Indicator’s steering Committee, and
a member of Ashoka: Innovators for the Public, and different councils and com-
missions related with children and public policies. In 2007 he was elected as a
representative from Latin American Coalitions to the NGO Advisory Council for
follow-up to the UN Secretary-General’s Study on Violence Against Children.
SLOTH NIELSEN Julia

South Africa – University of the Western Cape, Faculty of Law
Julia Sloth-Nielsen is senior professor at the Faculty of Law, University of the
Western Cape South Africa. She was a drafter of the South African Child Justice
Act enacted in 2008, and of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005. Her doctoral thesis
was on the influence of international law on South Africa’s juvenile justice re-
form process. She has published extensively and consulted to UNICEF, UNODC,
and various African governments in children’s rights related spheres.
STRAETMANS Gert
Belgium – Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Antwerp
Professor Dr Gert Straetmans has been the vice-dean for education since 2006,
and will become the dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Antwerp as
of 1 October 2008. He studied law at the universities of Leuven and Poitiers, and
acquired further research qualifications at Columbia University New York. He
is professor of International and European Trade Law, and Economic (European
and Belgian) Law. He is the author of numerous publications in the fields of EU
Law and Belgian Trade Law.
VAN BREEN
Belgium – ATD Fourth World
Herman Van Breen is since 1982 member of the international ATD Fourth World
Movement volunteer corps. ATD (All Together for Dignity) is a Human Rights
Movement, active in 27 countries in different regions of the world (www.atd-
fourthworld.org ). After missions in Belgium and the Netherlands, Herman
Van Breen was between 1999 and 2006 ATD Fourth World’s European Region
coordinator. He is currently involved in the Fourth World Peoples Universities, a
forum for dialogue between people living in persistent poverty and people from
wider society.
VANDENHOLE Wouter
Belgium – University of Antwerp, Law Faculty, UNICEF Chair
in Children’s Rights
Wouter Vandenhole teaches human rights law and holds the UNICEF Chair in
Children’s Rights at the Law Faculty of the University of Antwerp. His research

interests include children’s rights, human rights, in particular economic, so-
cial and cultural rights, and the relationship between human rights law and
development. He is an active member of the European Network of Masters in
Children’s Rights.
VANHEULE Dirk
Belgium – University of Antwerp, Faculty of Law
Dirk VANHEULE (° 10 May 1966 in Ghent, Belgium) holds law degrees of the
University of Ghent (Master of Laws, 1989), Toronto (LL.M., 1991) and Antwerp
(Dr. iur., 2001). He is associate professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Ant-
werp, teaching and researching in comparative constitutional law, public pro-
cedural law, Anglo-American law and migration law. He is also advocate with
Storme, Leroy, Van Parys in Ghent and has appeared i.a. before the Constitutional
Court and the Supreme Administrative Court of Belgium and the European
Court of Human Rights.
VAN KEIRSBILCK Benoit

Belgium – Service droit des jeunes (Service for children’s rights)
Trained as a social worker, Benoit van Keirsbilck has been Director for Service
droit des jeunes (Service for children’s rights), in Brussels for the last twenty-
years. Supporting youth and families, this organisation uses a rights-based ap-
proach while working for and with people facing discrimination and violation of
their fundamental rights. Currently President of Defence for Children Interna-
tional Belgium, Mr. Van Keirsbilck has actively participated in the implementati-
on of the Belgian section and is also involved in the Executive Committee at the
international level. This shows his commitment towards the rights of the child.
This nongovernmental organisation acts as a monitoring system with regard to
the implementation of the Convention on the rights of the Child. As editor-in-
chief of the Belgian edition of the Journal du Droit des jeunes, he is also known
as an international guest speaker. Finally, he has participated in the set up of
an Interdisciplinary Centre for the Rights of the Child (Centre interdisciplinaire
des droits de l’enfant) that aims to undertake research and teaching in the field
of children’s rights.
VERHELLEN Eugeen
Belgium – Em. Professor and Former Director, Children’s Rights Centre
Until 2002 Eugeen Verhellen was professor of Juvenile Justice Law and Child-
ren’s Rights at Ghent University (Belgium). He has been the director of the
Children’s Rights Centre at the university (recipient Human Rights Award of the
League for Human Rights, 1995).
He was the co-ordinator of the European Erasmus/Socrates programme on
Children’s Rights. He was also co-ordinating the Unesco-programme CRUN
(Children’s Rights Universities Network). Since 1996 he was the organiser of
the annual International Interdisciplinary Course on Children’s Rights. Toge-

ther with Räda Barnen (Sweden) he co-organised training courses on children’s
rights in Croatia, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria (1998-2002). Professor Verhel-
len has been a consultant on children’s rights to the Council of Europe and
the United Nations and to international non-governmental organisations. He is
still lecturing on children’s rights and juvenile justice at different universities.
He is vice president of Unicef Belgium. Professor Verhellen organised several
national and international congresses on inter alia Ombudswork for Children
(1987) and Monitoring Children’s Rights (1994).He is co-founder and member of
the editorial board of The International Journal of Children’s Rights (Martinus
Nijhoff) and of A commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child (Martinus Nijhoff). He published widely in Dutch, French and English
on children’s rights issues.
VLIEGHE Kathy
Belgium – Ghent University, Children’s Rights Centre
Kathy Vlieghe is a scientific employee at the Children’s Rights Centre of the De-
partment of Social Work, Ghent University. She co-organised many national and
international training programmes such as the International Interdisciplinary
Course on Children’s Rights. She is also a member of the editorial board of a
Flemish scientific journal on youth law and children’s rights.
WALGRAEVE Maurice
Belgium – University College Ghent
Maurice Walgraeve holds a bachelor in Social Work and worked for many years
with people with intellectual disabilities. He also obtained a master in philo-
sophy at Ghent University. From 1996 till 2000 he was the head of the Faculty of
Social Work and Welfare Studies of the University College Ghent, a mandate he
fulfils once again since 2005 till present. From 2000 to 2005 he was successively
director of the Student Services of the University College Ghent (SOVOREG) and
taught philosophy at the Faculty of Social Work and Welfare Studies.

List of Participants and
Personal Details Participants
AKOHIN Dehoégnon Valentin
Togo – Defence foreChildren Internatoinal - DCI
Valentin D. AKOHIN has started his career as Officer of Prevention and Training
Department at DCI-TOGO since 2003.Mains activities are: Develop, publish, and
distribute Information Education and Communication (IEC) on Child (Rights,
Trafficking, Protection, Sexual Exploitation, Violence against Girls, etc…); or-
ganizing training courses for Teachers, Policemen, and School Counsellors,
Vigilance Team at level Community and others Keys Actors. From 2006 to these
days his is Program Officer coordinating differents Projects: Juvenile Justice,
Child Reabilitationand reintagrating,Social Assistance. etc.... His is a Volunteer,
Trainer in Education on Human Rights at Amnesty International- TOGO. Junior
Consultant in Community Development (Project Management, conduct Survey
and Research on Problems and Needs of Communities).Valentin AKOHIN is
holder of Bachelor in Sociology of Urban Development and Social Change.
ANCHETA ARRABAL Ana

Spain – University of Valencia
Ana Ancheta Arrabal works as a researcher for the regional government of the
Comunidad Valenciana at the University of Valencia. She is finishing her Phd
in the department of Comparative education and History of education of the
Faculty of Philosophy and Educational Sciences in Spain and doing an intern-
ship at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences in the University of
Ghent. Her research aims to examine how different European policies cover the
right to attention and development of equal access to care and quality education
in the early childhood, considering the integration processes of the pupil in a
situation of social risk and exclusion in the European systems of education.
AUDITOR Antonio Comanda

Philippines – Free Rehabilitation, Economic, Education and
Legal Assistance Volunteers Association, Inc
Antonio Auditor studied Business Management and Accountancy and has wor-
ked in community development works in the Philippines for several years. Cur-
rently, he is the Executive Director of Free Rehabilitation, Economic, Education
and Legal Assistance Volunteers Association, Inc., a non-governmental organi-
sation operating in Cebu City since 1983. He has extensive training on human
rights and in the field of children’s rights, in particular the rights of children
in conflict with the law. He introduced innovative approaches in dealing with
juvenile offenders and regarding the proper implementation of the juvenile

justice law particularly in his country, which he has presented in various fora,
both local and international. His interest is in the development of community-
based programmes for child protection and juvenile justice using advocacy,
training and policy reforms as major strategies.
BALANON Faye
Philippines – Psychosocial Support and Children’s
Rights Resource Center
Faye Balanon is a social worker and is now a Program Officer of the Psycho-
social Support and Children’s Rights Resource Center (PST CRRC). She is in-
volved in research and training of social workers and other child caregivers on
providing psychosocial help. She is also involved in the evaluation of program-
mes and projects for children in need of special protection with various donor
agencies.
CARGILL Dwayne
Jamaica – Office of the Children’s Rights Advocate
Dwayne is the Research Officer at the Office of the Children’s Advocate (OCA)
in Jamaica, a government institution empowered to protect and enforce the
rights and best interests of children. He has been involved with youth work
for over 5 years and served as the Jamaica Youth Ambassador to the Com-
monwealth. In 2006, he represented Jamaica as Youth Adviser at the United
Nations general Assembly. He is responsible for conducting research on the
experiences of children in the Justice System and the Foster Care System in
Jamaica. Additionally, Dwayne has planned several Consultations dealing with
issues affecting children. He has qualifications in Public Sector Management
and Development.
CASSAR Christine
Malta – The People for Change Foundation
Christine is a sociology major at the University of Malta. She has worked exten-
sively on human rights and human rights education within Amnesty Internatio-
nal Malta Group, as well as a project development freelancer, including assign-
ments for the Commissioner for Children and Ministry of Education. In 2006,
she was a Youth Delegate to the United Nations, as advisor within the Maltese
Permanent Mission at the UN HQ on the Third Committee. She is now director
of the People for Change Foundation, an organization working on human rights
with particular focus on vulnerable groups.
CHISHOLM Suzanne
UK – Welsh Assembly Government
Suzanne Chisholm works for the Welsh Assembly Government; since 1999
Wales has had responsibility for its own policy for children and young people,

which differs from England /UK on a lot of issues. Since April 2008 Ms. Chis-
holm has been responsible for children and young people’s rights and entitle-
ments for the 0-25 age group. She leads a team of 20 people; the team works
with a lot of NGOs and other partner organisations and with children and young
people themselves to take the work forward.
CHONGO James Lameck

Zambia
James Chongo’s professional experience includes work on: planning and
executing child-centred programmes from different perspectives: disability,
health, poverty & education in international development agencies. He has
hands-on experience in rural & peri-urban child rights sensitisation & pro-
motion. His five-year (2002-6) work experience with a British international
development agency (Action on Disability & Development - ADD) enabled him
to master up special expertise in promoting the rights and welfare of child-
ren with disabilities. He also worked in building capacity of national parents’
organisations and federations in becoming effective campaigners and advo-
cates for the rights of children. He engaged Government and policy makers
at the highest level in lobbying and advocating for inclusive and sustainable
policy and legislative reforms. He also undertakes labour laws and the labour
practice in order to become an informed consultant on issues of Child Labour.
His fields of study are Social Sciences and Business Management/ Admini-
stration.
COUZENS Meda
South Africa – University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban
Meda Couzens is a Romanian lawyer currently teaching Law (including child-
ren’s rights) at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban South Africa. Meda
has six years work experience as a prosecutor in Romania. She also worked for
several NGOs promoting children’s rights in Romania and South Africa. Meda
has specialised academically in children’s rights during her postgraduate stu-
dies in the UK (University of London) and South Africa (University of KwaZulu-
Natal).
CROSSET Cécile
Belgium – Plan Belgium
After following a European Master in international humanitarian assistance at
UCL (Université Catholique de Louvain Belgium) and a work experience with
UNICEF Belgium, Cécile Crosset started working for Plan Belgium 3 years ago.
In the first years she was in charge of publications and development education.
Since July 2007, she is working as Communication and Advocacy manager for
French-speaking Belgium, bringing forward the importance of child rights in
development cooperation issues.

CUEVAS Patricio
Lebanon – World Vision Lebanon
Patricio Cuevas is the Advocacy Manager with World Vision Lebanon. He is res-
ponsible for developing and overseeing the advocacy strategy, which is focused
on promoting civil participation of the poorest, most excluded and discrimina-
ted populations, to influence social justice and changes in public policy. The
main focus of his advocacy work in Lebanon is to change policy and practice
to ban all forms of violence against children and enhance awareness of child
rights, by influencing stakeholders through research, policy analysis and pro-
moting public debate.
DE GREVE Hans
Belgium – Plan Belgium
Hans De Greve studied Social Pedagogies at the University of Louvain, Belgium.
He started his professional career as advocacy officer with the Flemish Anti-Po-
verty Network. Translating the experiences and problems encountered by poor
people in Belgium into policy measures and advocating for policy change in
favour of the poor were his most important duties. Since May 2008 he is working
as advocacy officer with Plan Belgium, an NGO with a focus on child rights.
DELPLACE Marie
Belgium – Ghent University
Marie Delplace is a human rights officer with UNOCI in Côte d’Ivoire. Previously,
she worked at the Law Faculty and the Faculty of Psychology and Educational
Sciences of Ghent University and the Office of the High Commissioner for Hu-
man Rights in Geneva. She has an LL.M. in International Human Rights Law
from the University of Essex (2007).
DEVOS Kim
The Netherlands – National Youth Council
Kim Devos has an MA in International Relations from the University of Gronin-
gen, the Netherlands and a European Master’s Degree in Human Rights and
Democratisation (Venice, Italy/Athens, Greece, 2005/2006). Since 2007, she is
a Policy Advisor/Project Officer at the Dutch National Youth Council in Utrecht,
the Netherlands. Previously, she was a Junior Lecturer Netherlands Institute of
Human Rights (SIM) Utrecht, the Netherlands. In 2005-2006, she was a mem-
ber of the Dutch delegation to the 61st session of the United Nations Human
Rights Commission in Geneva, Switzerland
Snce January 2009 she is working as a freelance consultant human rights/
children’s rights: Alepou Consultancy.

DIOP Marie
Belgium
Marie DIOP has been working on cooperation between the European Space
Agency (ESA) and the European Commission for 6 years. Since September
2008 she has been specializing in Asylum and Immigration policy and law at
the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), and has also increased her knowledge
on children’s rights. In parallel to her studies, she worked for UNDP in the
framework of the Joint Migration for Development Initiative (JMDI) - coopera-
tion between UNDP, UNHCR, ILO, UNFPA, IOM and the European Commission
encouraging diasporas’ contribution to the development of migrants’ countries
of origin – where she participated to the organisation of the 1st knowledge Fair
on Migration and Development in December 2008 in Brussels.
DONOVAN Kathleen
USA – Second Nature Wilderness Programme
Kathleen Donovan is a clinical social worker for the Second Nature Wilderness
Programme and in a private practice since January 2007 and April 2001 res-
pectively. As a therapist, she specialises in treating traumatic stress disorders
in adolescents. Previously, she worked inter alia as a clinical social work con-
sultant with Family and Child Services in Washington DC. She has a Master in
Social Work from the Catholic University of Washington, DC.
GADEA RIVAS Ileana Maria

Nicaragua – Early Childhood Education Programme
Ileana María Gadea Rivas has a Master in Social Work and a BA in Education
and in Psychology. She is currently developing an Early Childhood Education
Programme to be implemented in Nicaragua. Ms. Gadea Rivas is a student of
the Montessori method and a writer of poetry and oral history.
While residing in the San Francisco, United States, she held professional po-
sitions as a social worker serving children with developmental disabilities and
children in foster care. She also worked as an administrator in higher educa-
tion institutions and lectured in the fields of social work, teacher education, and
child development.
GEDEVANISHVILI Maia
Georgia – Public Defender’s Office
Maia Gedevanishvili has graduated the Faculty of Psychology at Tbilisi State Uni-
versity. She is a Master in General Psychology and holds a Postgraduate degree in
Medical Psychology of the Institute of Psychology (Georgian Academy of Sciences).
Since 2006, she is the Chief Specialist at the Child’s Rights Centre, Public De-
fender’s Office (Ombudsman) of Georgia. Previously, she worked inter alia at the
Institute of Psychology (Georgian Academy of Sciences), the Psychiatric Hospi-
tal (Ministry of Healthcare), Education System Realignment and Strengthening
Project (Ministry of Education and Sciences) and Tbilisi State University.

HAJANE Shabrack Pancho
South Africa – Department of Education
Shabrack Pancho Hajane is employed as an Education Specialist in Social Ser-
vices in the Department of Education in South Africa. His work for the past five
years has focused on literature study and research on vulnerable, at risk and
distressed children and youth. Mr. Hajane has produced two publications on
Street Children and on Orphans. He liaises with different governmental depart-
ments as a collaborative effort, e.g. the Justice, Police and Correctional Ser-
vices and Social Development. Currently he is working on the topic “Children
in conflict with the Law”. The principal focus of the publications is on the best
interest of the child, though a holistic approach is of essence.
HAMMONDS Rachel
Belgium/Canada – human rights consultant
Rachel Hammonds is a New York State licenced attorney who studied law at
Ottawa and Edinburgh Universities. She currently works as a human rights
consultant specialising in economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights and in par-
ticular access to the right to health. Over the last five years she has worked
with MSF Belgium and the Belgian Coalition on ESC rights drafting and presen-
ting a report on Belgian compliance with its obligations under the Covenant on
ESC rights to the United Nations. Prior to coming to Belgium she worked at the
Harvard based François-Xavier Bagnoud Centre for Health and Human Rights
on the Right to Development Project.
KAVITI, Lillian Katunge, PhD

Kenya – University of Nairobi
Lillian Kaviti is a communication specialist based at the University Of Nairobi,
Kenya. She has 15 years experience in teaching students pursuing degrees in
education. Hence, the integration of children’s rights particularly in schools is
of great relevance to her in training future teachers. In addition, she has con-
ducted research in the area of gender and the rights of the girl child in Kenya.
Lillian has participated in numerous international human rights conferences in
her capacity as a researcher and active member of Haki-Africa, a human rights
association of University lecturers charged with the mandate of integrating hu-
man rights in African universities in East and Central Africa. Additionally, she
is a Communications Resource Person with FECCLAHA, a regional NGO based
in Kenya, whose core thrust is peace and conflict resolution in the Great Lakes
region and Horn of Africa.
KAYOMBO George Francis

Tanzania – National Network of Organizations working with
Children in Tanzania (NNOC)
George Francis Kayombo is Secretariat Coordinator of National Network of
Organizations working with Children in Tanzania (NNOC). George Kayombo

has been working with Children’s Rights and policy issues for more than 10
years. He has coordinated drafting of three shadow reports on implementation
of the CRC and its Optional Protocols (OPSC & OPAC) and presented them to
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child.
Kinderrechtencommissariaat – Chilren’s rights commissioner

belgium
The office of the Children’s rights commissioner was established in 1997-1998
by the Flemish parliament. Its overall function is to moninitor the implemen-
tation of the CRC. The office has a rather broad mandate and focuses on both
individual ombudscases as well as more structural policy recommendations. It
also informs the general public, children and young people in particular on the
importance and the content of the CRC and on ways how they can actually use
their own rights. In the last ten years the office managed to put children’s rights
more and more on the agenda of both policy makers and the broader public
opinion. Still...a lot of work is left to be done.
LA ROSE Nenita
The Netherlands – Child Helpline International
Nenita La Rose has been the Executive Director of Child Helpline International
(CHI) since 1 January 2007. Previously, she has acted as a legal advisor for
refugees and has broad experience in government administration serving as a
personal assistant to the mayor of Amsterdam, Head of the International Desk
of the City of Amsterdam and acting as Ambassador for the city in the Euro-
pean Network for European Union Capitals. From 2001-2006 she was Manager
General Affairs and Public Services in Amsterdam. She studied Law at the Uni-
versity of Amsterdam and achieved her Masters (LL.M) in 1986, with a major in
child law and compulsory education law.
LILE Hadi Khosravi

Norway – Norwegian Centre for Human Rights (PhD Research Fellow)
Hadi Khosravi Lile is a PhD candidate at the Norwegian Centre for Human
Rights, University of Oslo. His research is about the Convention on the rights
of the Child in relation to Saami (indigenous/minority) children. The scientific
foundation for his PhD is within the field of sociology of law. Hadi is also the
project manager for Diya, an NGO working to combat child labour. In addition
he has been working as an advisor for Gáldu – Resource Centre for the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples.
MANAJ Shkelqesa
Albania – Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Child Labour Unit
Shkelqesa Manaj holds a bachelor degree from the Law Faculty and from the
Faculty of Economy of Tirana University, and a postgraduate degree in Social

Work from Tirana University. She is currently chief of the Child Labour Unit at
the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs in Albania and National Project Coor-
dinator of the ILO-IPEC Programme with MOLSA “On Elimination of Child La-
bour”. Mrs. Manaj is also a pedagogue at the Faculty of Economics at Tirana
University. Previously she has worked with Caritas France and the Ministry of
Labour and Social Affairs.
MANGULAMA Noris Kelly

Malawi – Human Rights Commission
Noris Kelly Mangulama has since July 2008, been appointed the Director for
Education, Information and Training within the Malawi Human Rights Commis-
sion responsible for coordinating all human rights education programs of the
Commission. Until her recent appointment, Noris worked as the Principal Child
Rights Officer for 5 years, in the same organization, responsible for Offering ad-
vice to the Commission on the best interest of the child; Initiating consultations
with the relevant stakeholders on the best interest of the child in policy develop-
ment and related areas, monitoring and investigating child rights violations and
conducting civic education on child rights and child protection.
MC GUINTY Carleen
Canada – World Vision Canada
Carleen McGuinty is Policy Advisor - Child Protection for World Vision Canada,
based in Toronto, Canada where she is focusing on issues of child exploitation
such as sex tourism. She was previously working in Ottawa as a policy officer
with World Vision Canada where she focused primarily on government rela-
tions. She graduated from the University of Toronto with a Masters degree in
International Relations after which she spent one year in Sri Lanka (2006) to
assist in the implementation and monitoring and evaluation of a post-tsunami
and alternative to conflict project for youth with the World University Service of
Canada (WUSC).
MULAMBA Benjamin
Democratic Republic of Congo – Institut Supérieur de Commerce
Benjamin Mulamba Mbuyi is professor of international law at the universities
of Goma and Kisangani (DR Congo). He is the author of, among other publi-
cations, “Refugees and International Law” (Sweet and Maxwell, 2001) and of
“Introduction a l’Etude des Sources Modernes du Droit International et Public”
(Laval, 1999).
NACHTEGAELE Yolanda
Belgium – Juvenile Court Antwerp
Yolanda Nachtegaele works as a juvenile Judge in Antwerp. She holds a Master
in Legal theory (legal reasoning) and in European and international law. She at-

tended and participated in several seminars concerning parenthood, parental ab-
duction, family law, international and national adoption and international private
law. Her specific interest concerns the judicial implementation of vague rules
about childrens’s rights, such as “the interest of the child”, “public order”, etc.
NIGMADJANOVA Gulchekhra
Uzbekistan – Uzbekistan Children Fund
Gulchekhra Nigmadjanova works with the Uzbekistan Children Fund imple-
menting a project on elimination of worst forms of child labour. Previously she
worked World Vision International Uzbekistan Programme during 7 years. Her
expertise includes child protection policy and standards, humanitarian emer-
gency affairs, prevention and combat HIV/AIDS, children of special needs, edu-
cation and social work. She is also in charge of a national NGO – Association for
the Support of Children and Families. She has studied Philosophy at university
and has an experience of work in education and academic research.
OSAAJI Mumia Geoffrey

Kenia – University of Nairobi, Department of Literature
Mumia Geoffrey Osaaji is a lecturer at the Department of Literature at the Uni-
versity of Nairobi, Kenia. His teaching specialities are Oral Literature, Child-
ren’s Literature, Theories of Literature, Postcolonial and African Literature,
Literature and human rights, Stylistics, Language Use in Literature and Black
Aesthetics. He is also involved in training of trainers and facilitators in Gender
and Development, the Rights of Refugees, the Rights of Old People, and Human
Rights in General. Mr. Osaaji is specialised in report development, activist re-
search and programme management. His articles are widely published in inter-
national journals and in the mainstream media. He is currently working at three
books to be published in the near future.
PIETERS Bert
Belgium – Steunpunt Jeugd
Bert Pieters is Staff Member Youth Policy at Steunpunt Jeugd. Previously, he
was a researcher at the “Instituut voor Onderwijs- & Informatiewetenschap-
pen”, University of Antwerp. He has a Master in Oriental Languages & Cultures
from Ghent University.
PRABHU Nina
Canada – Childcare Resource and Research Unit
Nina has a Master of Arts in Early Childhood Studies. In conjunction with the
Consultative Group on Early Childhood Care and Development, she completed
her graduated thesis on international agencies’ responses to children in emer-
gencies. Nina currently conducts child care policy research and advocacy in
Canada.

ROEFS Jeanne
The Netherlands – Communication Consultant
Jeanne Roefs was trained as a journalist and worked as a reporter and editor
for different magazines, before she started specialising in development coo-
peration. Since 1985 she has worked in different positions in communication,
education for development and advocacy for several development organisati-
ons, including the Netherlands Committee for UNICEF, where she was Head of
Communication and Advocacy for eight years. She now works as a free-lance
writer and consultant on communication issues regarding international coope-
ration and child rights.
RUMMENS Gwendolijn
Belgium – Ghent University
Gwendolijn Rummens studies Criminology at the Ghent University, Belgium.
Since January 2006 she is a volunteer with Rung, a project for young runaways.
Because of the many problems in the work field, she got interested in Children’s
Rights and the children’s rights movement. She will work as intern with Kruis-
kenshoeve, a time-out project for children.
SABAA Susan
Ghana – Child Research and Resource Centre
Susan Sabaa is currently the Executive Director of Child Research and Re-
source Centre in Ghana. Her work involves research-based policy advocacy for
children, monitoring and tracking the social impact of policies on children and
youth and building their capacity for effective participation in community/na-
tional and international issues. She is a trainer in child rights and related is-
sues to governmental, non-governmental and development institutions. She is
also an expert in early childhood development for orphans and other vulnerable
children and consults in child development for programming and planning at all
levels. Previously, she worked for eight years as the National Coordinator for
Ghana NGO Coalition on the rights of the child (1999-2007). Susan has a Master
in Child and Youth Care from the University of Victoria, Canada, followed pro-
fessional training in Organisation and Systems development from the Gestalt
Institute of Cleveland OSD Centre, Ohio ( USA), has a BA in French and English
and a Diploma in Education from the University Of Cape Coast, Ghana.
SANDERSON Anna-Joy
UK – World Vision UK
Anna-Joy Sanderson currently works as a Child Rights Policy Officer for World Vision
UK, focusing particularly on the commercial sexual exploitation of children
and inclusive education. She joined World Vision in 2006 following
completion of an MSc in Poverty Reduction & Development Management. Prior
to that she spent two years in Latin America doing voluntary work.

SAYITA Sevgi
Turkey – Istanbul University, Faculty of Political Sciences,
Department of Public Administration
Sevgi Sayita is a jurist and is working as an assistant professor at the Depart-
ment of Public Administration at the Political Sciences Faculty of İstanbul Uni-
versity. She lectures on Civil Law, Introduction to Law and Social Services and
Law. Her doctorate thesis is on foster care of children. Since 1990, she have
been studying, working, giving lectures, writing, talking, and discussing on
children’s rights and child protection law.
SHAMSIDDINOV Salohiddin
Tajikistan – UNICEF Tajikistan
Salohiddin Shamsiddinov is Project Assistant in Child Protection at UNICEF Ta-
jikistan. Previously he worked with IFES Tajikistan (International Foundation for
Electoral Systems) as a Programme Coordinator. He has a Master in Business
Administration from the University of Pune, India.
SILAN Edelweiss F.
Philippines – Save the Children UK Southeast and East Asia Regional Office
Edelweiss F. Silan is currently working as the Regional Cross-border Project
Coordinator of Save the Children UK Southeast and East Asia Regional Office
(2004 to present). Previously, she has worked inter alia with the UN Multi-do-
nor Programme for Peace and Development in the Southern Philippines and
Save the Children Japan – Philippine Office. She has a BS. Psychology degree
from the University of the Philippines, and has undertaken advanced studies
on Social Work, Development Management, Peace Building, Child Rights, and
Monitoring and Evaluation. She is currently working on an MA/PhD course on
Organisational Development with the Southeast Asia Interdisciplinary Develop-
ment Institute (SAIDI) in Manila.
SOOVA Kadri
Estonia – Chancellor of Justice
Kadri Soova has a degree in law from Tartu University, Estonia and a Masters
degree in human rights and democratisation from the European Inter- Univer-
sity Centre. She wrote her Masters thesis concerning the rights of immigrant
workers at the University of Padua in Italy. She is currently working as a child
rights adviser to the Chancellor of Justice- an impartial human rights institu-
tion in Estonia.
STOLTE Maaike
The Netherlands – International Child Support
Maaike Stolte is a Senior Programme Officer with International Child Support
(ICS) with specific responsibilities in the area of education and child protection.

ICS is a small innovative Dutch NGO working on the realisation of children’s
rights in East Africa and South East Asia within a partnership called Change
for Children. Maaike Stolte has a background in teaching and a Master in child
psychology. She has extensive experience in post-conflict and development si-
tuations, mostly in Africa, working on issues of education and child protection
with different NGOs. Her work has always had a focus on community-based
child development.
SULTANA Kishwar
Pakistan – GCAP Pakistan
Kishwar Sultana is known as gender expert and human rights activist. She re-
presents the national secretariat of GCAP Pakistan - which marked the third
position for peoples’ mobilization in the Stand-Up Campaign in 2007. She is
also a consultant and gender advisor of various national level organisations,
including the Local Councils Association of the Punjab (LCAP). Mrs. Kishwar
provides technical assistance to various governmental and non-governmental
bodies on various issues, including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),
the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Wo-
men (CEDAW), Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSR: especially gender res-
ponsive budgeting), the Children’s Rights Convention (CRC) and Gender Reform
Action Plan (GRAP). Mrs. Sultana heads an organization, namely Insan Founda-
tion Trust, Pakistan which is active on child rights, women’s rights, peace and
environment.
TA NGOC Van
Vietnam – Blue Dragon Children’s Rights Foundation, Hanoi
Van Ngoc Ta is the Child Rights Advocate at Blue Dragon Children’s Founda-
tion in Hanoi, Vietnam. Since graduating with a Law degree in 2006, Mr. Ta has
worked with Blue Dragon to develop and implement programs which protect
children’s rights. Most notably, this has included a birth registration program
for street children; advocacy for street children and youth in conflict with the
law; and an anti-trafficking program which rescues and reunites children who
have been trafficked internally and internationally.
TALESHI Maziar
Iran – UNICEF Iran
Maziar Taleshi’s educational background is in Transcultural & Social Psychia-
try. This is a non-medical degree which overlaps with Medical Anthropology and
aims to discover and shed light on the contributions of culture on the shaping
of emotional difficulties in differing cultural settings. His work background in
Canada with migrants and refugees exposed him considerably to protection is-
sues. After going to Iran in the aftermath of the Bam earthquake he worked
on cultural psychiatry in the WHO collaborating centres. The most significant

experience in this period for him was joining UNICEF in 2004 working on child
protection (specifically psychosocial support) in the field in Bam. Upon closure
of the Bam programme he has continued to work on psychosocial support wit-
hin the setting of Education and the HIV-AIDS/Adolescent Development unit.
TRINIDAD Arnie C.
Philippines – Psychosocial Support and Children’s Rights
Resource Center (PST CRRC)
Arnie C. Trinidad has a Master’s Degree in Sociology from the University
of the Philippines and recently resigned from his post as assistant profes-
sor at the Department of Sociology, University of the Philippines Diliman.
He is currently Programme Officer and Research Fellow of the Psychoso-
cial Support and Children’s Rights Resource Center (PST CRRC). He has
published books and manuals on Child Pornography in the Philippines,
Teaching Peace and Human Rights, Juvenile Justice, and journal articles.
VAN BORTEL Tine

UK – King’s College London
Tine Van Bortel is originally from Belgium where she obtained her initial de-
gree in Humanities. Subsequently, she undertook further degree studies in So-
cial Sciences at the University of Glasgow where she also obtained her PhD.
She also worked as a volunteer in Guatemala, the UK, Belgium, and has been
a carer for several years. Currently, Tine Van Bortel works at the Institute of
Psychiatry at King’s College London where she is a researcher and the Project
Coordinator of the Global ASPEN/INDIGO Depression Study. This study is a col-
laboration between sites from all over the world (NGO’s, grassroots practitio-
ners, research institutes and governing bodies) researching stigmatisation and
discrimination in relation to people suffering from mental illness (in this case
depression).
VAN DER WAL Hellen A.

Aruba – State Council of Aruba
Hellen A. van der Wal (1958) studied Journalism (1979) and Law (1990) in
Utrecht, Holland and is presently working on her doctorate in criminology, at
the University of Amsterdam. For this she conducted the Youth Lifestyle Survey
2007 (n=1080) in Aruba.
She co-founded in 1999 the Aruban Child Helpline of which she is President sin-
ce. In 2005 she founded the Community & Crime Research Foundation: an orga-
nization that initiates and stimulates scientific research. In 2007 she was elected
Caribbean Representative in the NGO Advisory Council for follow up to the UN
Secretary General’s Study on Violence Against Children. Since 2002 she is the
Secretary to the State Council of Aruba, an independent council that advises the
Government and Parliament on matters of legislation and the Constitution.

ŽAGAR Danijela
Croatia – Ombudsperson for Children
Danijela Žagar has been the Legal Advisor to the Croatian Ombudsperson for
Children since May 2007. Her main activities include providing legal advice on
protection, monitoring and promoting children’s rights and interests in accor-
dance with the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, the Convention on the
Rights of the Child and other international treaties and national laws. She is a
Bachelor of Laws and previously worked as an attorney-at-law.
ZEKAS Tautvydas
Lithuania – University of Vilnius
Tautvydas Zekas has a Master’s degree in Law and is now continuing his PhD in
Criminal Law and Criminology at the University of Vilnius (Faculty of Law). The
field in which he deepens his knowledge is Children Exploitation for the purpo-
ses of Pornography and Prostitution. He is a teacher of Criminal Law (general
part) at Vilnius University.
ZOHREVAND Razieh
Iran – Alzahra University, Faculty of Psychology
and Educational Sciences
Razieh Zohrevand is a PhD student from the Faculty of Psychology and Edu-
cational Sciences at Alzahra University, Iran. In the framework of her PhD re-
search, she is currently an exchange student at Ghent University. She is the
Director of the Women Studies Division at the Institute of Educational Research
in Tehran, Iran. Her research focuses inter alia on countering high school drop-
out rates in rural areas by use of a PRA method (Participatory Rural Appraisal),
educational reforms in girls’ education and analysis of educational planning
and curriculum according to girls’ needs in the educational system in Iran.

Participants' contact details
AKOHIN Dehoegnon Valentin
Chargé de Programme Défense des Enfants-International; Sect. Togo
49, 115 Rue AFLAO-GAKLI; lomé
BP: 80732 Lomé
Togo
ANCHETA ARRABAL Ana

Avenida Argentina 25
03130 Santa Pola
Allicante
Spain
AUDITOR Antonio
Executive Director Free Rehabilitation, Economic, Education and Legal
Assistance Volunteers Associaton, Inc. Room 207 – Mingson Bldg.
Cor. Juan Luna – Zamora Streets
6000 Cebu City
Philippines
BALANON Faye Alma

Program Officer Psychosocial Support and Children’s Rights Resource Center
325 Prudencio St Sampaloc
1008 Manila
Philippines
CARGILL Dwayne
Research Assistant Office of the Children’s Advocate
Red Ground District
Old Harbour P.O.
Jamaica
CASSAR Christine
Director People for Change Foundation
Transquility Barsol Street 29
MST 4472 Mosta
Malta

CHISHOLM Suzanne
Head of Rights & Entitlements Branch
Welsh Assembly Government
Rights & Entitlements Branch, DCELLS, 3rd floor, Crown Building,
Cathays Park
CF10 3NQ Cardiff
UK
CHONGO James
Director Our Children
33 Kango, Lubala 4B
P.O. Box 38613 Lusaka
Zambia
COUZENS Meda
Lecturer, Faculty of Law University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
1 Hernhill 32 York
4001 Durban
South Africa
CROSSET Cécile
Resp. Information & Sensibilisation Plan België
Plan België, Galerie Ravenstein 3 B5
1000 Brussel
België
CUEVAS Patricio
Advocacy Manager World Vision
Villa Sinyora, Mountazah
Mansourieh El-Maten
Lebanon
DE GREVE Hans
medewerker Advocacy Plan België
Plan België, Galerie Ravenstein 3 B5
1000 Brussel
België
DELPLACE Marie
Staff

DE VOS Kim Sonja
Project Officer International Affairs/Policy Advisor Dutch
National Youth Council
Snipstraat 13bis
3582 TD Utrecht
Nederland
DIOP Marie
Chaussée de Vleurgat 111
1000 Brussel
België
DONOVAN Kathleen
Psychotherapist-Trauma specialist Second Nature Wilderness Program
P.O. Box 998
30525 Clayton
USA
GADEA RIVAS Ileana Maria

Project Director/Head teacher Santa Cruz Children’s Center
300 28th Avenue
94121-1804 San Francisco
USA
GEDEVANISHVILI Maia
Chief Specialist of the Child’s Rights Office of Public Defender of Georgia
11 Machabeli
0105 Tbilisi
Georgia
HAJANE Shabrack Pancho

Education Specialist ( social services ) Department of Education
1122 Moilwa Street, Munsieville
1739 Krugersdorp
South Africa
HAMMONDS Rachel
Staff

KAVITI Lillian, Katunge
Communications Lecturer, Department of Linguistic and Languages
University of Nairobi
P.O. Box 21 342
00505 Nairobi
Kenya
KAYOMBO George Francis

Secretariat Coordinator National Network of Organizations working
with Children
Morogoro Road, 2nd floor, NSSF Building,
P.O. Box 80232 Dar Es Samaaù
Tanzania
KINDERRECHTENCOMMISSARIAAT
Children’s Rights Commissioner
Leuvenseweg 86
1000 Brussel
België
LA ROSE Nenita
Executive Director Child Helpline International
Herengracht 418 (3)
1017 BZ Amsterdam
Nederland
LILE Hadi Khosravi

PhD candidate University of Oslo, Faculty of Law,
Norwegian Centre for Human Rights
Postboks 6706, St. Olavs plass
0130 Oslo
Norway
MANAJ Shkelqesa
Chief of Child Labour Unit Ministry of Labour
Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities
Rruga Kavajes, No.1001
Tirana
Albanië

MANGULAMA Noris Kelly
Principal Child Rights Officer Malawi Human Rights Commission
Malawi Human Rights Commission, H.B. House, Off Chilambula Road,
Opposite ADMARC depot, Private Bag 378, Lilongwe 3, Lilongwe
N/A Malawi
MC GUINTY Carleen
Policy Officer World Vision Canada
1858 Ferncroft Crescent
KIH7B5 Ottowa
Canada
MULAMBA Benjamin
Directeur Général Institut Supérieur de Commerce
37 Av. Kisangani Kananga
67 Goma
D.R.of Congo
NACHTEGAELE Yolanda
Juvenile Judge Antwerp
Grensstraat 43
1981 Zemst-Hofstade
België
NIGMADJANOVA Gulchekhra
Child Protection Advisor, Chairperson The Children Fund of Uzbekistan,
The Children and Families Support Association
5, Jasorat – 2 Str., 100143
Tashkent
Uzbekistan
OSAAJI Geoffrey Mumia

Lecturer in Department of Literature Haki Afrika / University of Nairobi
P.O. Box 30197
00100 Nairobi
Kenya
PIETERS Bert
Staff member Youth Policy Steunpunt Jeugd
Arenbergstraat 10
1000 Brussel
België

PRABHU Nina
Social Policy Researcher Childcare Resource and Research Unit
Unit 301 1407 Dupont Avenue
M6H 457 Toronto, Ontaria
Canada
ROEFS Jeanne
Communication Consultant /
P. De Hooghstraat 13
3583 RG Utrecht
Nederland
SABAA Susan
Executive Director Child Research and Resource Centre
P.O. Box TS-1, Teshie-Accra
Accra
Ghana
SANDERSON Anna-Joy
Child Rights Policy Officer World Vision UK
Peartree Lodge, 27 Pitcherlane, Loughton
MK5 8AU Milton Keynes
UK
SAYITA Sevgi
academician, assistan professor Istanbul University, Political Sciences Faculty
Moda Caddesi, Nail Bey Sokak, Manolya Apt. No:42/6
34710 Istanbul
Turkey
SHAMSIDDINOV Sahohiddin
Programme Assistant, Child Protection UNICEF Tajikistan
Dehoti Street 23/7 Apt 23
734000 Dushanbe
Tajikistan
SILAN Edelweiss
Regional Cross-border Project Coordinator Save the Children UK
Southeast and East Asia Regional Office
Save the Children UK, 14th Floor, Maneeya Center Bldg.,

518/5 Ploenchit Road, Lumpini, Patumwan
10400 Bangkok
Thailand
SOOVA Kadri
Adviser Office of the Chancellor of Justice of Estonia
Adamsoni 29-7
10137 Talinn
Estonia
STOLTE Maaike
Program Officer Education & Protection International Child Support
Oude Ubbergseweg 41
6522KE Nijmegen
Nederland
SULTANA Kishwar
Director Insan Foundation Trust
2 Ghazali Appartment, Wahdat Colony
54000 Lahore
Pakistan
TA NGOC Van
Chief Lawyer Blue Dragon Children’s Foundation
GGA, Nghia Dung, Ba Dinh
Hanoi
Vietnam
TALESHI Maziar
Head of Adolescent Unit UNICEF-Iran
C:O UNICEF-Iran 216 Nezami Street, end of Ghoba Darrus
19449 Teheran
Iran
TRINIDAD Arnie
Program Officer/Assistant Professor Psychosocial Support and
Children’s Rights Resource Center/University of the Philippines
Unit 1501 Future Point Plaza I, 112 Panay Avenue
1100 Quezon City
Philippines

VAN BORTEL Tine
Tine Van Bortel (MA, MPhil, PhD)
Centre for the History of Medicine
University of Glasgow
Lilybank House/ Bute Gardens
Glasgow G12 8RT
Scotland VAN DER WAL Hellen
President/Co-founder Stichting Maatschappij & Criminaliteit
Washington 43
Noord
Aruba
ZAGAR Danijela
legal advisor Pravobranitelj za djecu
(Ombudsperson for children)
Trpimirova 2/III
51000 Rijeka
Croatia
ZEKAS Tautvydas
PhD student Vilnius University
Saltkalviu 24-35
02177 Vilnius
Lithuania
ZOHREVAND Razieh
Alzahra University, Faculty of Psychology and educational Sciences
Vanak , Tehran –
Iran P.O Box 1993891167
Iran

RUMMENS Gwendolijn
Staff

The International Interdisciplinary Course
was made possible thanks to the financial support of
VLIR-UOS University Development Cooperation

UNICEF Geneva Regional Office for Europe
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
The Flemish Authorities
Federal Public Service, Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Cooperation
The Flemish Authorities The Ministry of Foreign Affairs
United Nations
Unicef Regional Geneva Office for Europe Educational, Scientific and
Unicef Belgium Cultural Organization

2008 ICCR - Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2008 ICCR - Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Interdisciplinary Course

Children’s Rights in a Globalized World:

The Children’s Rights Centre Unicef Chair in Children’s Rights

The Children’s Rights Centre Unicef Chair in Children’s Rights

The International Interdisciplinary Course Children’s Rights in a Globalized

 – Children’s Rights in a Globalized World: From Principles to Practice

A second cluster focused on implementation strategies and methodologies to-

Participants were expected to actively engage in discussions in the classroom

Coaching and Practical Arrangements

 – Children’s Rights in a Globalized World: From Principles to Practice

In preparing their assignment, participants were expected to critically reflect

Participants were expected to write an essay of maximum 1,500 words (3 pages)

A selection of essays, which is representative of the different expectations, per-

The Centre’s current research mainly focuses on a socio-political reading of

UNICEF Chair in Children’s Rights, University of Antwerp

 – Children’s Rights in a Globalized World: From Principles to Practice

5. Information about Participants:

 – Children’s Rights in a Globalized World: From Principles to Practice

Geographic and Gender Diversity

Contents of the evaluation forms:

Quality of presenters and participants

Increase the number of small workshops

Increase opportunity for participant interaction during presentations

Increase the geographical distribution of presenters

8. Sustainability: Course Outputs, Regional

10 – Children’s Rights in a Globalized World: From Principles to Practice

National and regional training

In light of this concern, and at the explicit request of a number of participants, a

Uses and abuses of the children’s

Ana Ancheta Arrabal University of Valencia – Spain

12 – Children’s Rights in a Globalized World: From Principles to Practice

From my perspective, this is an ‘extensible’ premise to any implementation of

Furthermore, policies need to be conceived from a multidisciplinary perspective

These days, we frequently witness how the phenomenon of discrimination and

vention on the Rights of the Child. New York, UNICEF.

poverty and social exclusion across Europe. European Children’s Network:

Market Studies Vol. 40. n. 4, p. 625-643.

14 – Children’s Rights in a Globalized World: From Principles to Practice

The increasing attention to education within the different policies is to be wel-

However, in light of Articles 28 and 29 of the CRC, there must be an understan-

Finally, to this extent, I want to end my comments by emphasizing the role of

16 – Children’s Rights in a Globalized World: From Principles to Practice

Roles and functions

The function includes advocacy through legal representation, public awareness

Government ministries and Agencies, NGOs, CBOs and private entities

more common forms.

18 – Children’s Rights in a Globalized World: From Principles to Practice

It is still a challenge deciding what is morally right or wrong especially where

The distinction of childhood is so important in understanding the action of pa-

It is also essential to rethink the strategies of eradicating corporal punishment.

20 – Children’s Rights in a Globalized World: From Principles to Practice

Advocacy Strategies for Children’s Rights in

22 – Children’s Rights in a Globalized World: From Principles to Practice

Although I believe that in principle this may be correct, and as straightforward

On the part of politicians and administrators this is of course very understan-

This question we encountered relates to a more fundamental tension between

The beginning of dialogue as a way forward?

24 – Children’s Rights in a Globalized World: From Principles to Practice

F. ANG et al, (2006) Participation Rights of Children, Antwerpen-Oxford, Intersentia.

DAILY NATION , August 2008

Kenya Children’s Act of 2001, Preamble

26 – Children’s Rights in a Globalized World: From Principles to Practice

– Children’s Rights in a Globalized World: From Principles to Practice

– Children’s Rights in a Globalized World: From Principles to Practice

– Children’s Rights in a Globalized World: From Principles to Practice

– Children’s Rights in a Globalized World: From Principles to Practice