Parental Rights Under Attack
by Michael Farris
On April 1, the Islamic nation of Maldives proudly announced a breakthrough in long-stalled negotiations to create an international tribunal to receive complaints from individual children. For twenty years, internationalist efforts to create a new world tribunal for children to challenge the actions of their own governments have been thwarted by political division. But, after a month of negotiations led by Maldives a unanimous agreement was reached on the components for a new optional protocol to be added to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Maldives is a curious choice to lead negotiations on a human rights treaty. When Maldives signed and ratified the CRC in 1990-91, it boldly rejected any semblance of religious freedom—a central “right” in the CRC. The Maldivian reservation proclaims: “The Government of the Republic of Maldives expresses its reservation to paragraph 1 of article 14 of the said Convention on the Rights of the Child, since the Constitution and the Laws of the Republic of Maldives stipulate that all Maldivians should be Muslims.”
What will this new protocol accomplish? According to Miadhu, a Maldivian news agency, the “protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), will create a procedure whereby children who are being abused or their representatives (such as national child protection NGOS, lawyers, and doctors) could seek assistance from international human rights protection mechanisms when domestic institutions are failing to offer protection.”
This means either a child on his own or a group like the Children’s Defense Fund (formerly headed by Hillary Clinton) or a local social worker could file a petition before this new international tribunal seeking to overrule the decisions of American courts regarding the rights guaranteed by the CRC.
An important principle of international law makes it clear how dangerous such tribunals can be. Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides, “A nation may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.” Thus, if the United States Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of a parent to engage in corporal punishment, for example, the losing party could then turn to this international tribunal to argue that America is failing to comply with the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Constitution of the United States would provide no defense in such a hearing. International law would be the exclusive authority for resolving the dispute.
Parental Rights
This scenario only becomes a reality if the United States decides to become a party to the CRC and to this new protocol. The Obama administration has publicly announced its desire to obtain the ratification of the CRC itself. And at a conference at Georgetown Law School in 2009, the American advocates of the CRC announced their support for this new optional protocol.
For those who cannot imagine the United States accepting these dramatic changes in our law, please remember that it was not long ago that it seemed unthinkable that the federal government would take over General Motors, major banks, and the American healthcare system. Global socialism marches at a quick pace.
