25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper
Theorizing a Political Economy of Parental Rights, Children's Rights, and Education Choice Discourses Across Four Anglosphere Countries
Bridget Stirling
University of Alberta, Canada
Presenting Author: Stirling, Bridget
This paper examines the political economy of education choice discourses and seeks to theorize the roots of claims to parental rights in countries generally associated with the Anglosphere and with similar political, legal, and philosophical traditions: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Across these countries, similar discourses of parental rights are grounded in three forces shaping education politics: a strong orientation towards property rights, a socially conservative understanding of the role of the family, and neoliberalism and the privatization of publicly funded systems. Education reform is globalized and entrenched in a network of international organizations such as UNESCO and the OEDC among others (Sahlberg, 2016). As such, trends in education policy discourses move across jurisdictions, particularly those with similar models of education and shared legal, political, and cultural roots. Tracing the roots of these shared discourses represents an opportunity to interrogate the theoretical underpinnings of parental rights claims that supersede the rights of the child.
Parental duty of care for the child in the British common law tradition has roots dating back to the Roman empire’s legal restrictions on the powers of patria potestas (the legal rights of the father as pater familias). This duty of care was grounded in ideas of the child as chattel of the household (McGillivray, 2011), with duties towards children and restrictions on abuse similar to those regarding other living possessions under a heteropatriarchal understanding of the family. This principle enters into British common law tradition via canon law.
In his Two Treatises on Government, seventeenth-century British philosopher John Locke framed the idea of “natural rights.” However, he believed social rights did not exist within persons whose reason was not developed enough to pursue the self-preservation of those rights (Wall, 2008). Parents became the fiduciaries of the rights of the future person, responsible for the care of the child until they could assert their rights as adult rational actors.
This model informed legal decisions regarding children’s capacity for self-determination and the rights of parents through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, with recognition of the rights of children coming largely in the area of protection rights, viewing children generally as human rights objects rather than as human rights subjects (Wall, 2008; McGillivray, 2011). As the role of the state grew, protection for children’s wellbeing shifted from patria potestas to parens patriae – the fiduciary power of the state over those needing protection (McGillivray, 2011). This shift underpinned changes in custody, child welfare, and other state interventions in the life of the family and brought the child into the public sphere as a semi-citizen afforded the protection of the state but not the liberties of an adult person.
A further shift can be traced in the evolution of international conventions. The 1924 Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child set out a series of duties that humanity owed to children. Under the 1959 United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child, protections expanded and included the principle that decisions regarding children should represent the best interests of the child.
The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child shifted substantially and added participatory rights such as freedom of thought, expression, conscience, and religion distinct from those of their parents. However, the boundaries of parental rights and children’s rights continued to be contested within and beyond the UNCRC. In the neoliberal era in which education is increasingly privatized, the prioritization of property rights merges with continuing beliefs in children as the property of parents, shaping education reform discourses in which parental rights override children’s rights as the primary rights in education.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis historical sociology uses existing historical data to trace the relationship between parental and children’s rights discourses in the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These data are analyzed to identify shared trends in education reform discourses to develop a political economy of parental rights in education and theorize the political and social roots of shared parental rights discourses.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe ideological roots of parental rights are shared across the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These discourses emerge from British political, legal, social, philosophical, and religious traditions to shape abiding beliefs about the rights and role of children that are often at odds with contemporary constructions of children’s rights. These conflicting beliefs, in a system of power in which adults hold decision making control over the lives of children, lead to children’s interests and needs being overwritten by the desires of parents and other adults in shaping education law, policy, curricula, and school systems. Within this structure, children are the objects, not the subjects, of education discourses. If a society believes strongly in the idea that parental rights are the primary rights in education, and they believe that individual choice within a market is the best way to organize a society, then they will arrive at the place of ever-increasing educational choice where government’s role is to act as a service provider to individuals, rather than government as something in which we all participate as citizens whose role is to provide for and protect the public good.
ReferencesApple, M. W. (2006). Understanding and interrupting neoliberalism and neoconservatism in education. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 1(1), pp. 21-26.
Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations (1989). 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.
Davies, B. & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(3), pp. 247-259.
Giroux, H. (2011). Education and the crisis of public values. Peter Lang.
Kachur, J., & Harrison, T. (1999). Contested Classrooms: Education, Globalization, and Democracy in Alberta. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Press, xiii-xxxv.
Kjørholt, A. T. (2013). Childhood as Social Investment, Rights and the Valuing of Education. Children & Society, 27(4), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12037
Locke, J. (1690). Second Treatise of Government. Project Gutenberg eBook edition. Retrieved from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm
McGillivray, A. (2011). Children’s rights, paternal power and fiduciary duty: From Roman law to the Supreme Court of Canada. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 19: 21-54.
McGillivray, A. (2013). The Long Awaited: Past Futures of Children’s Rights. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 21, 209–232.
Qvortrup, J. (2009). Are children human beings or human becomings? A critical assessment of outcome thinking. Rivista Internazionale Di Scienze Sociali, 117(3/4), 631–653.
Rosenbury, L. A. (2015). A feminist perspective on children and law: From objectification to relational subjectivities. In T. Gal & B. F. Duramy (Eds.), International Perspectives and Empirical Findings on Child Participation: From Social Exclusion to Child-Inclusive Policies. Oxford University Press.
Sahlberg, P. (2016). The global education reform movement and its impact on schooling. In Karen Mundy, Andy Green, Bob Lingard, and Antoni Verger (eds.), The Handbook of Global Education Policy. Chichester, UK: Wiley & Sons, 128-144
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Wall, J. (2008). Human Rights in Light of Childhood. International Journal Of Children's Rights, 16: 523-543.
25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper
Diversifying the Concept of Schooling to Value the ‘Common Good’
Yvonne Stewart Findlay
University of Southern Queensland, Australia
Presenting Author: Findlay, Yvonne Stewart
This paper considers that education is for the ‘common good’ and explores the ways in which the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can be both a motivator and guide as to how this might be achieved. In particular three SDGs relating to human rights, education and the environment will be explored and developed to illustrate how they might form the basis for developing an education environment in which the ‘common good’ is paramount rather than the need for school league tables and standardised testing of students. The premise that schooling is about preparing our children and young people to take their place as responsible adults in the wider world is the underpinning paradigm for this paper.
The concept of the ‘common good’ is explored to reveal that while the term may be considered as an ideal to attain, it can also be used to allow for persecution and division in an autocratic and inward looking society. It raises the need for a global understanding of the term if the educational ideal is to be achieved.
The UNESCO publication (2015) asserts that there is a need to consider the guiding principles of education “as a human right and as a public good” (p. 11). Hollenbach (2002) considered the common good as being “the good realised in the mutual relationships in and through which human beings achieve their well-being” (p. 81). The perception of the ‘common good’ in today’s world would appear to be directed by governments who formulate policies and give directives to state agencies to direct how they work within society to both overtly and covertly meet the underlying principles of the political party in power.
Governments taking such power to themselves may argue that this is the only way to protect its citizens, but it has the potential to open the door to misuse of such power under the guise of being for the ‘common good’. The neo-liberal zeitgeist of standardisation would dictate that schools are about attainment targets for students, leading to school curricula and teaching strategies being about making sure that students can pass tests rather than learning for life. In this model, there is no place for the development of critical thinking skills, nor of deep inquiry strategies. In contrast, Rennie, Venville and Wallace (2012) regard schools as having the “social role of preparing our youth to be responsible adults and sensible citizens” (p.viii). The authors see the starting point of this approach as the “proposition that we live in a global community” (p.viii). Alderson (2016), in discussing citizenship education and its possible dilemmas, asserts that knowledge about rights should be a crucial inclusion in school curricula. She comments that “…rights serve as powerful structures that can help to prevent and remedy wrongs, and they work as enduring high standards and aspirations” (p.1).
The three SDGs under consideration link to the world in which we live and the ways in which they can influence our concept of what might make the basis for schooling that values the ‘common good’. The concept underlying this thinking is that we have a common dwelling place on a planet revolving in orbit around our sun. As such, each of us has a responsibility to care for our dwelling and look out for the interest of others. Each abuse of this world has an effect on all of us. The author contends that by diversifying the concept of schooling and the nature of school curricula to emphasise these three goals then we have the opportunity to have education systems that have the overarching aim of being for the ‘common good’ of society.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe issue of how the ‘common good’ might be achieved through education was examined through a focussed review of the literature found within UN documents, contemporary texts and academic journal articles. The review searched for the key words ‘common good’ and how they are linked to human rights, education and the environment. In particular, literature that expands on and exemplifies the SDGs under consideration. The principal researched texts include the following:
1. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) is the basis for any consideration of Human Rights and is relevant to the consideration of the ‘common good’ because of its emphasis on respect and care for each other.
2. The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training (UNDHRET, 2011) provided the basis on which to build a curriculum with a focus on an education that promotes “universal respect for and observance of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, in accordance with the principles of the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights” (Article 1.2).
3. SDG 16 links to human rights with its intent of promoting peaceful and inclusive societies that provide justice for all through effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. SDG 4 aims at the establishment of inclusive and equitable education and to promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. SDG11 has the intention of creating an environment in which all human living communities are inclusive, resilient and sustainable. The common theme across all three SDGs is the establishment of societies in which all people can fulfil their potential as citizens in their community.
4. The Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration (2019) is an important document within the Australian context particularly for young Australian Aboriginal students and its provisions matched to the outcomes of the three SDGs.
5. The prescient Delors Report (1996), Learning: The treasure within indicated the way in which education could be fashioned to meet the ‘common good’ and was scrutinised to search for links to the research topic.
6. Education 2030, Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action (2015) was referenced to highlight the specific aims of SDG 4 although many of its comments also apply to SDG 16 and SDG 11.
7. The Forum for a new World Governance drafted a Charter of Emerging Human Rights in a Globalised World (2012) that adds to the original UDHR (1948) by reviewing the way in which emerging nation states and digital technologies influence the global community.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe aim of this research was to clarify the ways in which the goals of SDG 16, SDG 4 and SDG 11 can together provide a framework for a curriculum that enables students to understand their place in the world and the affects and effects that actions have on others in their society. That society might be the school or classroom group of students of which they are a part. Starting with the concept of society being in the school or classroom, the students can be encouraged to consider:
1. How they regard each other as evidenced through personal interactions that have a positive negative affect on members of their social group.
2. Physical actions such as careless littering of the outside spaces or wasting of water can have an adverse effect on the environment as a whole.
3. Relating each seemingly small action to its wider impact can reinforce the overarching goals of the three SDGs.
4. Translating that learning to their wider world beyond the school or classroom can enable the students to consider the ‘common good’ as a motivator for personal interactions and the wider environment.
5. Diversifying the school curriculum from a limited focus on academic outcomes leading towards developing a generation of young people who will work towards meeting the targets of the Sustainable Development Goals.
A children’s rights environment within the school should encouraged all staff to:
1. Create an atmosphere within the school community that embraces diversity of ethnicities, language, cultural background, physical and cognitive abilities.
2. Develop learning and teaching approaches that encompass the diverse learning styles of students and a variety assessment modes through which they can present their knowledge and understanding.
3. Encourage all students to develop their individual personalities and have a sense of personal worth.
ReferencesAlderson, P. (2016). International human rights, citizenship education, and critical realism. London Review of Education, 14(3), 1-12. doi:10.18546/LRE.14.3.01
Alice Springs Declaration 2019: Council, E. (2019). Alice Springs (Mparntwe) education declaration. Carlton South, Australia: Education Council Secretariat
Delors Report 1996: Delors, J. (1996). Learning: The treasure within. Paris, France: United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Hollenbach 2002: Hollenbach, D. (2002). The common good and Christian ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Institut de Drets Humans de Catalunya (2012). Charter for Emerging Human Rights. Barcelona https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=institut+de+drets+humans+de+catalunya
Rennie, Venville & Wallace 2012: Rennie, L., Venville, G., & Wallace, J. (2012). Knowledge that counts in a global community. Abingdon , UK: Routledge
UDHR 1948: United Nations (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Online. www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
UNDHRET 2011: United Nations (2011). United Nations Declaration on human rights education and training. Retrieved from: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Education/Training/Compilation/Pages/UnitedNationsDeclarationonHumanRightsEducationandTraining(2011).aspx
UNESCO (2015). Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and framework for action. https://iite.unesco.org/publications/education-2030-incheon-declaration-framework-action-towards-inclusive-equitable-quality-education-lifelong-learning/ accessed 19/01/23
United Nations (2015). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. Retrieved from New York: https://www.unicef.org/sowc2016/
25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper
Noncompliance with Education Law as Institutional Maintenance: The Case of Haredi Boys Schools’ Decisions Regarding Core-Curriculum Regulations
Lotem Perry-Hazan1, Netta Barak-Corren2, Gil Nachmani1
1University of Haifa, Israel; 2Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Presenting Author: Perry-Hazan, Lotem;
Nachmani, Gil
Schools comprise a critical arena in which liberal states and ultra-religious communities compete over normative superiority. A prominent manifestation of this contest is the repeating conflicts over the scope of secular education (SE) in Haredi (Jewish ultra-Orthodox) boys schools, which sanctify religious studies and prepare students to become religious scholars, outsiders to the workforce (Author 1, 2015). Recent events put conflicts over Haredi education at the forefront of public and legal discourse. A New York Times investigation revealed serious concerns regarding the quality of SE in New York Haredi schools (Shapiro & Rosenthal, 2022). In the UK, a new Schools Bill seeking to revoke the exemptions accorded to unregistered Haredi schools (Rocker, 2022) met with mass Haredi protests (Bloch, 2022). In Israel, a fierce struggle over a new policy that incentivizes Haredi schools to teach SE nearly dismantled a Haredi political party and could impact the outcome of the national elections (Rabinowitz, 2022).
Despite the enduring conflict over the regulation of ultra-religious education, we have scant empirical knowledge on the role of such regulations in ultra-religious schools’ decision-making processes. We study this question in the context of Haredi elementary schools for boys that are obliged to implement Israel’s core-curriculum regulations.
Theoretical Framework
The conflict over the regulation of ultra-religious education manifests a tension between the acceptability and adaptability features of the right to education (UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1999). The right to acceptable education emphasizes the development of the children’s personality, talents, and mental and physical abilities (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, Article 29(1)(a)). The right to adaptable education entails the adaptability of education to children’s cultural affiliations (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, Article 29(1)(c)), and the protection of minority children’s cultural rights (Article 30). The conflict over the regulation of ultra-religious education also pertains to parental rights (Lundy, 2005) and state interests in a strong democracy (Guttmann, 1999) and optimal workforce participation (Robeyns, 2006).
Balancing the competing rights and interests is a complex task that concerns policymakers worldwide (e.g., Author, 1, 2014, 2015; Lichtenstein, 2022; Rocker, 2022). A common form of balancing is a universal “core” curriculum that reflects basic educational standards (Beane, 2016). Studies exploring Haredi schools in different countries (Author 1, 2015) and Islamic schools in Singapore (Tan, 2010) concluded that mandatory core curriculum policies are ineffective due to communal resistance and the state’s reluctance to use drastic measures such as school closing. These studies were mainly based on documents. Two small-scale studies addressing conditional funding curricular policies provided data regarding the implementation of such policies (Author 1, 2014, 2019). Another study suggested that ultra-religious communities may be open to implementing core curricula if these programs communicate respect for their identity (Author 2, 2021). These studies laid the foundations for the present study. To date, however, no studies have systematically explored the reality of (non)compliance with the core curriculum in Haredi schools and empirically mapped the factors shaping schools’ decisions regarding SE.
To explore how Haredi schools respond to the core-curriculum regulations, we draw on institutional theory, which offers a framework for analyzing the competing sources that influence organizational decision-making processes. A significant thread in institutional theory has focused on the external sources that influence separate organizations within a field to act in similar ways, a phenomenon termed isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Another thread is institutional work, which highlights the role of agency within institutional theory and explores the purposive action of individuals and organizations aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence et al., 2011).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedOur study is based on qualitative and quantitative methodologies, building on in-depth semi-structured interviews and documents drawn from the largest and most systematic sample to date of Haredi schools. We designed and collected a heterogeneous purposive sampling that represents the variation between groups of schools in their curricular requirements and legal status and provides proportionate representation of socio-geographic clusters and affiliations in the Haredi society. Overall, we conducted 88 semi-structured interviews with 48 principals and 34 teachers of Haredi boys schools, providing detailed information on 62 schools serving about 18,000 students; and six state inspectors, each supervising dozens of Haredi schools. We also collected various documents from the schools, including school guidelines, timetables, results of standardized exams, official reports to the state, and weekly letters to parents.
All interviews were conducted between 2019-2021. Thirty-seven interviews were conducted in person in the interviewees’ offices or homes. Forty-four interviews were conducted via telephone and one on Zoom due to Covid-19 restrictions. Interview questions addressed the day-to-day teaching of SE at different grade levels, including the number of weekly hours devoted to SE at each grade level and subject, the decision-making process regarding teaching SE subjects, and the relationships between the schools and various figures, such as the state, the municipalities, the parents, and the rabbis. We also queried the educators regarding their personal opinions. The ethical procedures were approved by Author 1’s university IRB and the Ministry of Education.
The interviews and documents were analyzed in several steps. First, in line with our interest in the factual patterns of SE teaching, we created a dataset of the quantifiable information that principals and teachers provided regarding the subjects and the number of weekly hours taught at each grade level. This process drew on specific questions about these issues in each interview and on relevant documents. Based on this information, we compared the schools’ SE curricula with the regulations. We then sought similarities and variations between the schools.
Second, in line with our interest in the factors shaping schools’ decisions, we developed a qualitative coding scheme. During the first analysis phase, we outlined factual patterns and general themes emerging from the interviews. At this stage, we decided to draw on institutional theory and focus on the sources of schools’ decisions. We designed another coding scheme differentiating between these sources. We used Dedoose to analyze the data according to the final coding scheme.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOur findings show that schools subject to stricter legal requirements are more compliant than schools with looser requirements. Nonetheless, the law’s overarching role was in tension with its under-enforcement. The findings indicate that all groups of schools fall short of full compliance with curricular regulations. Noncompliance was typically explicit, appearing even in formal reports principals submitted to the state; Indeed, state inspectors were aware that most schools were not compliant.
This tension we found between the overarching role that the law plays in schools’ curricular compliance and the widespread noncompliance appears to maintain the relationships of the Haredi community with the state. On the one hand, the Haredi community has a growing participation in public spheres, including politics and higher education (Hakak, 2016; Novis-Deutsch & Rubin, 2019). Participation requires accommodating public structures. On the other hand, the relationships of the Haredi community with the state are characterized by noncompliance, resistance to state authorities, and exemptions from generally applicable laws, such as secondary school SE education and army service (Authors 1-2, 2021).
Practices of institutional maintenance typically involve supporting, repairing, or recreating the social mechanisms that ensure compliance or reproduce existing norms and belief systems (Adler & Lalonde, 2020; Heaphy, 2013; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Sapir, 2021). In contrast, breaching rules is typically defined as a disruptive attack on institutions (Heaphy, 2013). Our findings challenge this conventional classification. In contexts where noncompliance and resistance to state authorities is the social norm, such as the case of Haredi education in Israel (Authors 1-2, 2021; Author 1, 2015a, 2015b), noncompliance can be best understood as institutional maintenance.
We also identified multiple sources of schools’ decisions, uncontrolled by prevalent templates of noncompliance. These spaces offer new paths for regulatory efforts to improve SE and fulfill the educational rights of Haredi students.
ReferencesAdler, C., & Lalonde, C. (2020). Identity, agency and institutional work in higher education: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 15(2), 121-144.
Beane, J.A. (2016). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. Teachers College Press.
Bloch, B. (2022). Charedi parents say children might be sent to Belgium if schools bill passes. The Jewish Chronicle. https://www.thejc.com/news/community/charedi-parents-say-children-might-be-sent-to-belgium-if-schools-bill-passes-2Q6IPIYFykLVtde73pZ76y
DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–60.
Guttmann, A. (1999). Democratic education. Princeton University Press.
Hakak, Y. (2016). Haredi masculinities between the Yeshiva, the army, work and politics: The sage, the warrior and the entrepreneur. Brill.
Heaphy, E. D. (2013). Repairing breaches with rules: Maintaining institutions in the face of everyday disruptions. Organization Science, 24(5), 1291-1315.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T.B. Lawrence, & W.R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies, 2 (pp. 215- 254). Sage.
Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52-58.
Lichtenstein, M. (2022). Legitimizing tactics: Hasidic schools, noncompliance, and the politics of deservingness. American Journal of Sociology, 127(6), 1860-1916.
Lundy, L. (2005). Family values in the classroom? Reconciling parental wishes and children’s rights in state schools. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 19, 346-372.
Novis-Deutsch, N., & Rubin, O. (2019). Ultra-Orthodox women pursuing higher education: Motivations and challenges. Studies in Higher Education, 44(9), 1519-1538.
Rabinowitz, A. (2022). Progress reported in talks on joint run of ultra-Orthodox parties Degel Hatorah and Agudat Yisrael. Haaretz. https://www.thejc.com/family-and-education/all/new-schools-bill-introduces-move-to-regulate-yeshivot-69CkyWZ7VHltmUyuJImA5Q
Robeyns, I. (2006). Three models of education: Rights, capabilities and human capital. School Field, 4(1), 69-84.
Rocker, S. (2022). New schools bill introduces move to regulate Yeshivot. The Jewish Chronicle. https://www.thejc.com/family-and-education/all/new-schools-bill-introduces-move-to-regulate-yeshivot-69CkyWZ7VHltmUyuJImA5Q
Sapir, A. (2021). Brokering knowledge, monitoring compliance: Technology transfer professionals on the boundary between academy and industry. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 43(3), 248-263.
Shapiro, E., & Rosenthal, M. (2022). In Hasidic enclaves, failing private schools flush with public money. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/11/nyregion/hasidic-yeshivas-schools-new-york.html
Tan, C. (2010). Contesting reform: Bernstein’s pedagogic device and Madrasah education in Singapore. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(2), 165–182.
UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1999). General comment no. 13. U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1999/10.
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). U.N. Doc. A/RES/44/25.
|
