Conference Agenda

The study examines the drafting process of General Comment No. 1 (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2001; hereinafter GC1), which interprets Article 29(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Its aim is to understand whether and how the Committee addressed the inherent tensions and ambiguities in Article 29(1), particularly those related to fulfilling the aims of education in diverse societies.

Article 29(1) provides the most comprehensive articulation of the aims of education in international law (Lile, 2020; Lundy, 2012). Building on earlier international instruments, it introduces several new elements, including the development of the child’s talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential (Article 29(1)(a)); respect for the child’s parents, cultural identity, language, and national values, as well as for civilizations different from their own (Article 29(1)(c)); and respect for the natural environment (Article 29(1)(e)). Seminal scholarship on the right to education has highlighted the significance of these additions, particularly the cultural dimension enshrined in Article 29(1)(c) (Beiter, 2005; Lundy, 2012).

Article 29(1) was interpreted by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in GC1. In light of the provision’s broad and vague language, the Committee’s interpretive role assumes particular importance. On the one hand, GC1 outlines an expansive vision of the right to education that reflects educational ideas considered progressive at the time of its adoption (I’Anson, 2021). It promotes a “child-centred” approach to schooling and a “holistic” understanding of curriculum design that extends beyond basic knowledge acquisition (§9, §12). I’Anson (2021) characterised these interpretations as “ambitious - even quite radical - in scope” (p. 15). GC1 itself recognises that realising this vision would require substantial reforms to existing educational systems (§18).

On the other hand, GC1 largely avoids engaging with the challenges of implementing the right to education across diverse cultural and political contexts. It acknowledges that “some of the diverse values expressed in Article 29 (1) might be thought to be in conflict with one another in certain situations” and notes that efforts to promote tolerance and understanding may not always align with policies aimed at fostering respect for a child’s own cultural identity and national values (§4). Rather than addressing the dilemmas that may arise from such conflicts or proposing mechanisms to resolve them, GC1 asserts that the significance of Article 29(1) lies in its call for a “balanced approach” capable of “reconciling diverse values through dialogue and respect for difference” (§4).

This open-ended language sidesteps long-standing debates concerning the minimum standards or core content of the right to education in international law (Alston, 1987; Coomans, 1994), as well as broader disputes over the universality of human rights versus cultural relativism (Donnelly, 1984; Zechenter, 1997). As Lundy et al. (2016) observed, balancing the cultural aims of Article 29(1)(c) with the other educational goals in Article 29(1) lies at the heart of many contemporary national and transnational challenges. These include, for example, human rights and democratic education in authoritarian contexts and restrictions on children’s right to exit their culture through the omission of educational content necessary for participation in democratic societies.

This silence on core dilemmas may help explain why GC1 has received relatively limited scholarly attention and exerted modest influence in practice (Author 2 et al., 2021; Edeji, 2025; I’Anson, 2021; Lansdown, 2022). Notably, the present study is the only one to date that systematically examines the drafting process of GC1.

This contribution examines how the principle of universality in human rights is pedagogically mediated through national curriculum discourses, focusing on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the constructed figure of “the child”. While universality is formally anchored in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and reaffirmed through subsequent international human rights instruments, its meaning remains conceptually contested. Debates distinguish between the aspiration to secure justice and dignity for all and the risk that universalist claims may conceal culturally specific assumptions, reproduce Western-centric norms, or silence marginalised voices (Alston, 1994; Faulkner & Nyamutata, 2020). Against this background, the UNCRC’s near-universal ratification and its age-based definition of the child (under 18) appear to establish a shared legal subject: the “universal child”, a rights-bearer whose entitlements should transcend borders, languages, and political systems (United Nations, 1989; United Nations General Assembly, 2018). Yet critical scholarship has long argued that this ostensibly neutral subject is often modelled on implicit norms (e.g., white, able-bodied, heterosexual, middle-class), and that universality may flatten the plurality of childhoods shaped by context, power, and intersecting forms of exclusion (James & Prout, 1997; De Graeve, 2015; Joosten, 2024).

The article develops a comparative analysis between Sweden and Italy to explore how the “universal child” is refracted through national educational policy. These cases are strategically selected because both are European democracies committed to education and children’s rights, yet they differ markedly in how they articulate children’s rights within legal and curricular frameworks. Sweden has incorporated the UNCRC into national law and positions the child explicitly as a rights-holder within the curriculum (United Nations, 1989). Italy, while committed to inclusion and democratic education, tends to embed children’s rights indirectly through constitutional humanism and relational values; rather than foregrounding rights language, the Italian curriculum privileges a personalist conception of the child as a “person” whose identity is constituted through relation and participation, sustained by a strong alliance between school and families (MIUR, 2025).

The analysis is grounded in qualitative content analysis of curriculum documents at ISCED levels 1 and 2 (primary and lower secondary), focusing on two research questions:

(1) how is “the child” represented, including terminology, attributes, and implicit assumptions; and

(2) are specific groups of children named and, if so, which groups and what educational provisions are addressed to them? (UNESCO, 2021).

Findings indicate that both curricula construct childhood as multidimensional, refusing a narrow academic reduction and emphasising development across cognitive, emotional, relational, and civic dimensions. However, they mobilise different conceptual grammars. Sweden frames the child through universal human rights and anti-discrimination principles, operationalising agency through participation and democratic influence in school life, and explicitly aligning with legal protections (Osler & Starkey, 2010). Italy frames the child through dignity-centred personhood and “enabling contexts”, where inclusion and personalisation are expressed as pedagogical responsibilities linked to talents, life projects, and intergenerational solidarity (MIUR, 2025). Overall, the article argues that universality should be approached less as a philosophical problem to be settled than as an analytical lens for examining how curricula authorise particular images of childhood, recognise (or obscure) diversity, and shape what forms of rights-knowledge and participation are made available to children in compulsory schooling (Osler & Starkey, 2010; Colli Vignarelli, 2025).

The comparison also highlights how universality is mediated not only through policy traditions but through language itself. The term “child” is not semantically neutral across languages: Italian translations using bambino may implicitly connote early childhood and default masculine generic forms, potentially narrowing who is readily imagined as a rights-holder, while Swedish barn is gender-neutral and age-inclusive (Reynaert, Bouverne-De Bie, & Vandevelde, 2009; Liebel, 2012).

Children’s human rights education (CHRE) is emphasised in UNCRC article 42 (UN, 1989). More emphasis on CHRE in national curricula is needed alongside the development of its own knowledge structure or episteme (Parker, 2018). Studies have investigated the implementation of rights of provision, protection and participation (e.g. Covell et al, 2010; Osler and Solhaug, 2018), including in unplanned ways (Isenström, 2022). Whether signatory states’ commitment is followed through into national curricula, syllabi, assessment criteria and examinations is under-explored. We examined national documentation in three countries: Scotland; Sweden; and Türkiye. Scotland and Sweden have incorporated the UNCRC into national legislation. There has been previous research comparing Swedish and Turkish preschool curricula in this general field (Kahriman-Pamuk and Borg, 2025) but not compulsory education for the three countries. We provide a commentary on what our results show about the importance placed on CHRE in the three countries and what messages there are for other European countries.

Scotland has a national framework, Curriculum for Excellence (CfE), covering education for all children from 3-18 years (Scottish Executive, 2004). It was introduced in 2010 after extensive consultation and collaboration between educational stakeholders, including teachers, policymakers, and government. It emphasises flexibility and, rather than specifying content that must be taught, it lays down Experiences and Outcomes (referred to as ‘Es and Os’) that should be met in each of the curriculum areas by stage. While CfE was meant to be inherently decentralised, it has been found that teachers in England are more likely to diversify the curriculum than their counterparts in Scotland (Smith et al., 2025). The main aims and objectives of CfE are four key capacities: successful learners; confident individuals; responsible citizens; and effective contributors. The curriculum is currently being revised (Education Scotland, 2025).

In Sweden national curricula are issued by the Swedish Government and apply to the entire school system with different curricula for each level. These curricula specify the values that the school must base its teaching on and the goals that the student must achieve. All schools must follow the curriculum so that all students receive an equivalent education. There is a syllabus for each subject, teachers should start from what is in the syllabus when they plan their teaching, assess work, and assign grades. The curriculum is adapted at the municipal level and there is still room for the teacher to determine their own teaching. The curriculum requires that schools "convey and establish respect for human rights and the basic democratic values" (Skolverket 2022, p. 5). The section Fundamental values and mission of the school is based on a conception of students as active individuals that schools and school staff have the obligation to support in their learning process in a democratic society based on fundamental values, rights, and obligations. This section names gender equality, equity, no discrimination, sustainability as explicit central values for education.

Türkiye’s current curriculum is named Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli (Türkiye's Century Education Model) (Turkish Government, 2025). The word “century” was a political choice to emphasise the beginning of the second 100 years of the Republic of Türkiye. This curriculum covers all from pre-school through to high school and applies to all public and private schools, so that there is a unified standard for the entire nation. This new curriculum attempts to balance national unity and standards (centralisation) with pedagogical flexibility (decentralisation). Learning activities are designed to prioritise the development of high-level thinking skills and competencies (e.g., analytical thinking in mathematics, experimental learning in science). Values are no longer confined to certain subjects but must be integrated contextually across all subjects and activities via the virtue-value-action framework.

In the current context of fragile democracies, right-wing populism and attacks on human rights, there is an urgent need for human rights education (HRE), and in particular, children’s human rights education (CHRE). Over 50 years ago, UNESCO recognised the transformative potential of education to promote peace and international understanding, identifying a specific role for human rights to act against all forms of racism, fascism, and apartheid (United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, 1974). UNESCO’s most recent report, Reimagining our future together: a new social contract for education (UNESCO, 2021), continues to emphasise the power of education to repair injustices and transform the future. Several international human rights instruments state children’s right to human rights education, including the morally binding 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the legally binding 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). In 2011, the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training (UNDHRET) reaffirmed the notion of education as a transformative process to contribute to the promotion, protection and effective realisation of all human rights (United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, 2011).

Studies show that HRE in schools, if it occurs at all, is far from transformative (Gollifer, 2022). Tibbitts (2017, p. 86) suggests that dominant HRE models in schools reflect ‘socialization towards prosocial behaviour’. Various tendencies combine to dilute the transformational potential of HRE in schools: over-emphasis on declarationist approaches (Keet, 2017); narrow ethical and moral foci without legal knowledge (Lundy & Martínez Sainz, 2018); interpretations of human rights and HRE as synonymous with national values (Osler & Lybæk, 2014; Strømmen Lile, 2019; Vesterdal, 2016, 2019); and emphasis on personal rather than institutional responsibility for human rights (Bajaj, 2012). Struthers (2017) draws on extensive empirical data on teaching human rights in primary schools in England to suggest that inappropriate attitudes to the empowerment of students and weak government policy make it unlikely that students leave school capable of contributing to broader human rights cultures.

Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) places a legal as well as moral and political responsibility on States to ensure children’s right to express their views freely in all matters affecting them in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. Yet concerns have been raised that children and young people frequently experience their views as marginalised; (mis)interpretations of article 12 result in the undermining of the rights of children and young people (Lundy, 2007). Despite the 2007 Lundy model calling for consideration of four inter-related concepts (space, voice, audience, influence) research suggests inadequate genuine student participation.

Researchers from three countries (Australia, England, and Iceland) developed a small-scale pilot project aimed at creating a transnational space for young people to discuss their perspectives on Children’s HRE in the formal school environment. These perspectives were analysed in relation to the perspectives of teachers and academics, providing data that contributes to the advancement of article 12 of the CRC. This pilot study contributes to Children’s HRE by placing young people in an empowered participatory position to lead discussions about different aspects relating to their rights. It also engages with educators and academics for their perspectives on these same matters.

In this presentation, we draw on our pilot to examine the expected and unexpected challenges when conducting a tri-country participatory CHRE project. In particular, we problematise the role of stakeholders in enabling or constraining children’s participation in research intended to advance their rights.