David Kenneth Waldman

Introduction

The world should speak with one voice on the issue of the human rights of children. This important issue supercedes all other International Relations issues facing us today. Without the proper care and protection for our children, the world has no future.

The hypothesis of my paper is that the complexity of domestic politics in the United States has prevented congressional ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This raises the important question: does the role of domestic politics and the presumption of the peoples' representatives in Congress versus the power of the Executive branch and the presumption that the President sets the agenda for U.S. Foreign Policy, impair the ability of the U.S. to create and implement a human rights policy for children? In this specific case, international relations and domestic issues are entangled in an unfortunate web, which gives the U.S. the dubious distinction of being the sole dissenting nation to the first nearly universally ratified Human Rights Convention in history.

Domestic politics and the so-called Clinton Doctrine of creating lasting economic stability in the world have caused serious delays to the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the Senate. In order to explain the conflict between the domestic political forces and the making of U.S. foreign policy, I will first place it in the context of 200 years of U.S. history of children's rights. This will help begin the process of understanding why the Convention has not been ratified.

Private Groups and State Laws

From the beginning of the American nation, children's rights were a low political priority. Private groups took up the job of child protection for the first time in 1853, when the New York Children's Aid Society was founded and in 1875, when the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was created. The role of private groups in this context can be easily explained in terms of classic realism theory. The Federal government was not interested in improving the rights of the child. Its focus was on creating power for the fledgling new nation. As the nineteenth century came to a close, Illinois established the first separate court for juveniles. Children were now seen as needing protection. Usually the family had that function, but now for the first time civil society ruled that children need protection against some of the adults that abused them.

In the first half of the twentieth century, federal protection for the welfare of children was slow. Theodore Roosevelt was the first President to convene the first White House Conference on Children in 1909. In a major setback to children's rights, the Supreme Court threw out a law that outlawed child labor in 1918. Finally in 1941, the Supreme Court actually upheld an act (Fair Labor Standard Act, 1938) prohibiting child labor in interstate commerce.

The 1960's brought The Great Society legislation, the Viet Nam war, political assassinations, student's protests, the birth of the woman's rights movement, all of which served to radically alter the politics of the baby boomer generation. In this changing political and social climate came the much needed and extended constitutional rights for juveniles. In 1967 juveniles were granted the same rights to attorney and procedural rights as adults. In 1969, in the language of the Supreme Court the" right to hold peaceful political protests for students" was upheld.

Few Steps Forward, Few Steps Back-The 1970's and 1980's

In 1971 the Supreme Court refused to extend the basic human rights for children it had already granted. This was the decade of "Law and Order" yet the right to a jury trial for juveniles was denied. Neither notice nor hearing was required before schools could administer corporal punishment. In the 1980's, budget cutbacks reduced programs for children. At the same time the Supreme Court continued to resist claims for children's rights.

In 1981, the Supreme Court maintained that states have the right to require minors to notify their parents before they can obtain an abortion. After the Reagan-Bush years, the Supreme Court was clearly reflecting conservative Republican political agenda concerning children's rights. In 1988 in a decision that was constitutionally questionable, the Supreme Court limited the freedom of the press of a high school student who might have aspired to become a journalist. The right to print the juvenile perspective on issues was severely curtailed. In 1989 the Convention on the Rights of the Child was put forward on the United Nations agenda.

However, there were some very positive developments in these years as well. Children's advocates founded the Children's Defense Fund in 1973. Attorney Hillary Rodham in 1973 (1986-Hillary Clinton became CDF chair. She resigned in 1992 to help her husband's presidential campaign) started to write articles urging for broader and more comprehensive rights for children. This is one of the crucial turning points in the American history of children's rights. Their were two main opposing camps: the children's advocates and their view of comprehensive rights for children and conservative Republicans who clearly saw the battle as one of retaining traditional parental control as the best way to protect children's needs. A third point of view is the inherent right of children to decide for themselves with government and Children's Advocates support, which insisted that children have the same access to the Bill of Rights as adults.

The 1990's show a mixed record of success concerning the rights of children. There has been talk but very little legislation dealing specifically with children. To its credit the Clinton Administration signed the Family Leave Act in 1993. Clinton also unveiled a plan for free vaccines for all children under the age of two. These acts signaled a shift toward the Children's advocates point of views. Globally "traditional family values" have been redefined in society. In that context these acts were not seen as radical, but actually mirroring the thinking of a majority of families today.

Also in a precedent making decision, a Florida judge approved the adoption of a 12 year old boy by his foster parents, terminating his natural parents rights to retain custody. It is important to take note of this case and its' potential impact on domestic politics in relation to ratifying the Convention and the Rights of the Child. (Chronology: CQ Researcher April 23, 1993 page 343). The Convention and the Rights of the Child clearly state that all children have rights that place their best interests and welfare first and foremost. The Florida case provides the domestic precedent to support the Convention.

Carol Bellamy, the UNICEF Executive Director, sums it up best when she said, "A century that began with children having virtually no rights is ending with children having the most powerful legal instrument that not only recognizes but protects their human rights."

Humanitarians, environmentalists, NGO's and children advocates are increasingly providing an alternative view of the world. There has been an overwhelming response by all nations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. My assumption is that classic realism theory and the Clinton Doctrine of economic globalization could help to explain why the U.S. has not yet ratified the Convention. First, let us examine the Convention keeping in mind the history of the last 200 years of U.S. domestic children's rights.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child

The international year of the child in 1979 launched work on the first draft of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. A group was formed by the Commission on Human Rights. The Convention was unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on Nov. 20, 1989, and was opened for signature on Jan. 26, 1989. That first day 61 countries signed and on Sept. 2, 1990 the Convention entered "into force" after the 20th nation ratified it. Since then it took only 6 more years for all but two states to ratify the Convention. The United States of America and Somalia are the two non-ratifying countries; with Somalia not recognized as a state by the UN.

Principles of the Convention of the Rights of the Child

1. States shall ensure children will enjoy full rights without discrimination, the child's best interests shall be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children whether undertaken by public or private social institutions, courts, administrative authorities or legislative bodies. This might clash with conservative domestic policy and values in the U.S.

2. Every child has an inherent right to life, all states shall ensure to the maximum extent possible, child survival and development.

3. Children have the right to be heard; contrary to conservative family values that parental control over children is best for the needs of children (www.unicef.org/crc/conven/). There are substantive provisions in the Convention that coincide with existing U.S. Federal laws.

Four Basic Rights of the Convention on the Rights of the Child

1. Family Environment and Parental Guidance
This right indeed creates a strong win-set for the domestic conservative politics as traditional family values are covered and preserved.

2. Basic Health and Welfare of Children
The right of every child to have life and for all states to ensure the maximum extent possible for the survival and development of the child will create major debate and definition problems. As in the first two rights there is nothing in the Convention that the U.S. has not already been dealing with in the legislature. This should also create a win-set that all can come to agreement on. Different domestic groups would get some of their interests met.

3. Education - Leisure - and Recreation
In the U.S. educational system there are many external problems. The search and seizure laws of children's lockers have more to do with civil rights and crime in schools than the right to an education. The Convention states the right for the dignity of the child and the right to the full possible development of a child be implemented in all schools. The home schooling movement, which is part of the Fundamentalist Christian movement, will create challenges for a compromise. But considering the long tradition of public school education in this country, this issue will not become an insurmountable obstacle.

4. Special Protection Measures - Armed Conflict - Juvenile Justice - Exploitation - Minority Rights
First of all there is a massive amount of legislation and reports that deal solely on the exploitation issue of child labor. There are four volumes which goes into great detail of the abuses of child labor in the U.S. i.e.: manufactured and mined imports, U.S. agricultural imports and forced and bonded child labor and the consumer labels in the apparel industry, (US Dept. of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs: 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997) The scale of the problem as estimated by the International Labor Organization puts the number of labor abused children between 100-200 million, (By The Sweat And Toil of Children, Vol. 1 page 2) The enormity of this issue alone should unite all domestic groups as well as governmental institutions, NGOs to insist that ratifying the Convention is a win-set for all involved.

What is the Formal US Foreign Policy Towards Children?

The U.S. does not have a formal foreign policy towards children because it has not ratified the Convention. The protection of children's rights has both conservative and liberal supporters. I will argue that the U.S. government should ratify the Convention and the rights of children transcend conservative and liberal politics.

Children's rights are not won as one ages but are inherently yours from birth. Children are not separate beings but human with all the inherent rights granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The "presumptions about children's limited capacities" says Patricia A. Vardin and "the presumption of incompetence, as children are in fact presumed incompetent" are wrong and not factual. As an illustration, "it is more difficult, to prove a twelve year old child totally incompetent, and I think impossible to presume the typical sixteen year old incompetent." Look at the evidence of their understanding and achievements and this point becomes crystal clear. Children have married, worked and raised children at the ages of 12 to 16 through out history. ("Children's Rights: A legal Perspective, " Patricia A. Vardin and Ilene N. Brody, eds. 1979 pp. 21-36). A national debate over the definition of a child would be positive, in order to define or redefine our presumptions about childhood.

The impact of domestic children's cases in the Supreme Court and the Court's approach to children's rights will inevitably change. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is written in language that is constitutional in style and that should make it easy for American courts to interpret and support

International relations realists and the Pentagon are defending "the right for 17 year old soldiers to do battle" if necessary. The Clinton Doctrine on the other hand seems to be a most puzzling contradiction. The President's economic enlargement policy is a key transition to democracy around the world. We do not need 17-year-old soldiers defending American interests if the Clinton Doctrine creates an integrated economic sustainable world economy. Having the Senate ratify the Convention, will certainly help spread democracy and human rights around the world. This will be a strong international stabilizing factor as all children are granted human rights. At some point we must not rely on military strength but instead the strength of a world filled with more human rights safeguards. This will end the cycle of war and peace and economic instability.

The Legal and Moral Consequences of US Non-Ratification Humanitarianism has a long history in the making of policy for the United States. In order to understand the present administration's views on the rights of children, I believe a brief synopsis of the influence of Hillary Rodham Clinton is in order. Since 1973 when Hillary Rodham Clinton called children's rights a "slogan in search of definition", the issue of children's rights has become a strong domestic issue. (Children's Legal Rights, Kenneth Jost April 23, 1993 page 339). Hillary Clinton called for a stronger voice for children in court and a national policy on children and families. Her direct influence is clearly seen in the early years of the Clinton Administration's policy with the signing of the Family Leave Act on Feb. 5, 1993 and the Clinton plan for free vaccines for all children under age two on April 1, 1993.

When the issues of children's rights reached the U.S. courts, a national debate developed. The debate started to define the relationship of government involvement in children's rights and the rights of families. This debate centered around government involvement, as perceived by the conservatives, as undermining traditional values, such as two parent families as the answer for what ails American children. Political and social conservatives see social controls over children and loss of traditional morality as the threat. (Children's Legal Rights. Kenneth Jost, April 23, 1993 pp. 339-354) Domestic politics has set the stage for creating a minimalist attitude that would protect the domestic agenda as opposed to creating a single significant foreign policy for children's rights.

On Jan. 26, 1990 the Convention on the Rights of the Child was officially opened for signature and ratification. Signature constitutes a "preliminary and general endorsement." Signing is not legally binding, but a sign of intention to examine and to proceed to ratification. It does create the obligation not to undermine the objectives of the convention. (Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989). Even if the U.S. does not ratify the Convention, it still has an effect on all countries as part of international customary law. The Convention represents a very rare international consensus on the rights of children.

Where are the Legislatures and Courts in the US on Recognizing Legal Rights of Children?

First, children's rights issues are numerous: ranging from school desegregation, juvenile justice, child abuse, child labor, school uniforms, search and seizure of students' lockers, right to voice an opinion in adoption (foster Parents) cases and teen age abortions to name a few. A well known child right advocate Gary Melton, Director of the Center on Children, Families and the Law at the University of Nebraska, states that the "typical style is for the court to spend a few pages saying that the Bill of Rights applies to children and then to spend many more pages explaining why it is OK to limit them." It is easy to conclude that the conservative agenda is to keep the rights and control of children with parental authority. This traditional role of families limits the ability of the Executive to act unilaterally. As we will later see the administration has its own separate agenda.

The children advocates play down the impact of legal rights and prefer to focus on "finding real ways to meet the real needs of children, the economic needs, the family security needs...Children's rights to sue parents would not advance the children's agenda as we understand it or as most children's advocates do" says the Children's Defense Fund. (Children's Legal Right. Kenneth Jost, April 23, 1993, page 344). Children's legal rights have become a partisan issue in American domestic politics. Yet in order to understand the Executive role in pursuing signing the Convention on the Rights of the Child we need to go to the Bush Administration.

The Bush Administration was actively involved in drafting the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The issues addressed by the Convention included: the end of child exploitation, respect for the religious rights of children, and a new resolution by countries to end child labor, improve access to education and provide decent health care for all the worlds' young people. It also called an end to torture and extensive imprisonment of children. It stood against capital punishment by people under 18 years of age; (the Convention defines a child as any person under the age of 18 years of age, unless a specific country defines the limit differently). The difficulty of ratifying such a treaty would have been difficult. The attempt in 1989 was never made, as the Bush administration never even signed the Convention.

As of Jan. 25, 1990 Representative Miller of California states for the congressional record "the failure of the United States to sign the Convention on the Rights of the Child would in no way bind the U.S. to the Senates' ratification process. (Congressional Record article 3, Failure of United States to sign Convention in Rights of the Child. House of Representatives, Jan. 25, 1990, page H93)

Why did it take until the end of Feb. 1996 for the U.S. government to finally sign indicating their intention to ratify (which Clinton has still not sent to the Senate the Convention to ratify)? I will provide a brief analysis for the reason later on in my paper.

In addition to the Executive's branch own U.S. foreign policy agenda there are reasons why children's rights are not a priority. There are political conservative domestic policy concerns: teen abortion, parental control, and capital punishment. (CQ. Should the U.S. Ratify U.N. Treaty on Children's Rights?, Kenneth Jost April 23, 1993, page 345). In order to explain how domestic policy has tied the Executive's hands, I will use the tool of the logic of two level games, the Putnam metaphor, Clinton Doctrine, and realism to understand the rift between the Congress and the President. The convention makes clear that a sovereign nation - the U.S., would need to take steps to bring national laws, policy and practice into agreement with the Convention. Why this remains an obstacle can be explained by a recent New York Times article June 12, 1998, that states that the " U.S. endorses and supports a proposed treaty to outlaw the most exploitative forms of child labor" (New York Times, Geneva U.S. endorses treaty on child labor abuses, June 12, 1998 v147 pA5 col 1). The United States along with nearly two-thirds of the International Labor Organization 174 member nations did not sign the treaty, despite the fact that according to the article 250 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 work worldwide. This can be understood in terms of the Clinton Doctrine. As domestic policy and foreign policy becomes blurred, the limitation of trade threatens the economic security of the U.S. Many U.S. companies employ child labor and such age restriction ban would hurt the American economy. The classic realist argument that a sovereign will not hand over domestic issues (Clinton Doctrine) to an international body, if it perceives it as a potential threat to U.S. interests. A classic Clinton approach to solving a U.S. foreign intervention child labor problem by ignoring the issue. A multi-lateral approach would limit the ability of the U.S. to proceed with the Clinton Doctrine. The Doctrine allows for the control of US sovereignty and a pseudo neo-international tract that does not involve the military with adjacent and extremely high costs (The State of the World's Children, United Nations Fund, 1992, page 15, 35-36).

Is There a Clear Reason Why Clinton Has Not Sent the Convention to Congress for Ratification?

As I have outlined in the beginning of this paper, there has been a long history of domestic neglect of children's rights. Partisan politics have drawn a clear and sharp line in what is in the child's best interests in the domestic political policy of the United States. Robert Putnam explains international negotiations as a two level game. At the national level there are court decisions, social and political groups and child advocate groups each with there own agenda and win sets. The win-set for the child advocate is to give children a more visible and vocal voice in defending and determining their own rights, which clashes with the win-set of conservatives. At the international level the worlds' national governments (excluding the U.S.) in order to satisfy their own domestic pressures have signed and ratified the Convention. One ironic example for the U.S. is that Viet Nam (in the post cold war era) signed on the first day signatures were requested Jan. 26, 1990. On Feb. 28, 1990 Viet Nam became the first Asian country and the second in the world to ratify the Convention. Contrary to U.S. foreign policy Viet Nam's commitment to protect children's rights was linked to its' domestic social policy and economic sustainable development plan. The plethora of interests groups along with democratic institutions that have to contend with the Clinton Doctrine seem not to be able to take the decisive steps Viet Nam has taken.

As our national leader, President Clinton has not in my analysis appeared on both levels as Putnam's metaphor implies as necessary for successful negotiations. There is an unusually complex set of domestic issues that explains to a degree Clinton's reluctance to send the Convention on the Rights of the Child to the Senate for the ratification process. There is a hidden agenda, which I will come to explain why Clinton is not moving ahead with the Convention. This is the same reason why the Bush Administration failed to sign the Convention that it spent so much of its' energy in helping to frame.

What Do Policies for Children Look Like?

The World Summit for Children states as its' major proposition, "that the principle of first call for children-meaning that protection for the growing bodies and minds of the young ought to have a first call on societies' resources and should become an accepted ethic of a new world order."

The World Summit for Children called on all nations to place a high priority in the allocation of resources in bad times as well as in good times, at national and international levels as well as at family levels. The World Summit document became the basic assumption for the Convention on the rights of the Child. Not only is this country fighting the minimalist and isolationist, but also the myriad of interest groups that have a protectionist attitude concerning jobs, education and resources for Americans first. The support for the Convention of the Rights of the Child is put into jeopardy when the Convention calls for a paradigm shift for conservatives. Support for funding for the convention if ratified will face constant battles from conservatives across the political spectrum. Funding would face opposition as differing interest compete for funding. The issues such as child labor will not be seen as a priority from a faction that clamors for America first in labor. (The State of the World's Children, United Nations Fund, 1992, page 15, 35-36)

From the International Relations perspective policy makers come from the realist school, and issues concerning children, women or families are not understood. It has been left to the NGOs to lobby for and create the conscience for human rights when the government takes a back seat on this issue

Senator Pell announced the World Summit for Children on September 29-30, 1990 and asked this to be placed into the congressional record. The statement read into the congressional record came from the New York Times, June 1, 1990 outlining "the enormity of the problem children face with malnutrition and disease and the means at hand to save 20,000 (one-half of the children under five) who die daily". (Congressional Record, Congressional article 34, World Summit for Children, Senate, Senator Pell, June 20, 1990, page S8300) Congress is taking notice of the need for the Convention regardless of the bi-partisan issues I previously outlined.

According to Kenneth Roth the U.S. took the lead in building "modern international human rights law". Lately, the U. S. has fallen down again as the world's leader by:

Not ratifying the anti-personnel land mines treaty

Not ratifying the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Not signing the initiative by the International Labor Organization to ban child labor abuses. The United States has failed to show any leadership with substantive actions in the area of human rights. The conflict between the varied domestic political issues (Congress) and the leadership of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus might explain but does not justify this lack of leadership. The Clinton Doctrine explains the blur between domestic and foreign policy but there is another chilling explanation.

Neglected and very little publicized is the Pentagon's policy toward children and human rights. This explanation is a classic realist interpretation and will explain why the Bush Administration did not sign the Convention. It also explains why Clinton has not yet sent the convention to the Senate. In light of his policy not to sign the anti-personnel mine treaty this becomes all to clear. The Convention on the Rights of the Child and two new additional protocols to the Geneva Convention of 1949 states that there be a 18-year-old minimum for soldiers. The Clinton Administration (as the Bush Administration) opposes an 18-year-old minimum because the U.S. military recruits 17-year-old high school students rather than waiting for their 18th birthday. Less than 1/2 of one percent of the U.S. Military is composed of such underage recruits. The U.S. military stands alone in rejecting even a compromise proposal that would keep these soldiers out of combat. This President will never undermine the military in its assessment to protect the sovereign national security even if it means putting into great jeopardy our credibility as a moral leader in the area of human rights for children. (Foreign Affairs, Sidelined on Human Rights America Bows Out, Kenneth Roth, March/April 1998, page 2-6)

Now seeing two level game analysis and realist theory at work - U.S. negotiators have taken advantage of consensus rules that govern the negotiations to block other governments from adopting a ban for themselves. This strengthens the US position to use underage soldiers if other countries were not united against the US. Domestic and national interests are seen as being served if we do not limit our ability to defend ourselves. Whenever America's jurisprudence is at stake, negotiations will always seek the process that protects the U.S. Sovereign status for national security at any cost.

Does the End of the Cold War and the Clinton Doctrine Come in Conflict with Ratification?

Numerous representatives to the House of Representatives are in favor of signing and ratifying the Convention. Some issues that concern some members such as, children soldiers and the imperfect language of the Convention still do not seem to concern a large number of members. The debate is coming from within the House of Representatives to have Clinton send the Convention to the Senate for the ratification process. Conservatives and Liberals alike are agreeing on the Convention's basic premise. No individual Representative wants to be seen to their constituents that they were against the Convention. I can not undercover more of a debate between the Executive and the Legislature. The President has signed the Convention so the disagreement will not be clearer until the Senate gets a chance to enter into the debate during the ratifying process.

The international statistics on children are certainly overwhelming for reasons why the Convention is headed in the right direction for the protection of children's rights. Some of the facts are:

More than 38,000 children die every day due to a lack of food, shelter, or primary health care. Some the causes are: whooping cough, measles, diarrhea and pneumonia.

Approximately 800,000 infants die each year of neonatal tetanus alone.

Over 100,000,000 children are the victims of child labor abuse.

More than one billion people, the majority of them children- either have no home or live in inadequate housing.

20,000 children a day can be saved with the means already at hand.

More than 13 million children live in poverty in the US.

The US has the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world.

Nearly 100 million children of primary school age are not receiving an education (sources for these statistics UNICEF and Congressional Record The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Representative George Miller, Oct. 12, 1989, page E3398) The importance for the U.S. to take leadership to promote children's rights is painfully obvious. The domestic interests would be served in a bi-partisan manner. The U. S. should join the rest of the world in the observance and compliance with the Convention.

The minimum age of combat seems to be one of the most important issues for the Executive not to send the Convention for the ratification process. The Senate will create a lot of problems before it is passed. It appears that the win-set of the Congress and President has not been negotiated. The Clinton Doctrine would clearly benefit from the implementation of the Convention. The Convention would cause nation states to come together to protect the rights of the child, even rogue states and movements such as; the Sudan People's Liberation Movement and the South Sudan Independence Movement have agreed to abide by the Convention principles. Once accepted the steps to full implementation and observance would move more countries into democratic states as in line with enlargement policy.

So Why is the Clinton Administration Not Moving More Decisively to Support Ratification and Creation of a US Foreign Policy for Children?

As leader of the world and sole super-power we have a moral obligation to take a leadership position in the rights of children. In the larger context of international relations, failure to take part of this Convention weakens our position as moral leader and puts into great jeopardy the following issues: China and human rights, the Cuban trade embargo, the Clinton Doctrine and the Middle East conflict. We will be viewed as weak leaders in human rights. An issue the world is in rare consensus on. Failure to proceed will impact US credibility on any human rights issue.

In the final analysis the increasing internationalism of the post-Cold War era will be the final push for the Congress and the Executive branches of government to come together on this issue. It will take pressure off the United States on a variety of domestic children's rights issues such as: child labor abuse, teen abortion and child soldiers which will create a multi-lateral foreign policy. In the words of Madeleine Albright then representative to the United Nations, this neo-internationalism is a force "that seeks to build institutions that are more than the sum of their constituent parts in the world".

The drawbacks to all theories are that sovereignty and nationalism (realist theory) at the end of the day still exerts and remains the most powerful forces over domestic political policy politics. The President needs to overcome the inertia and send the Convention to the Senate for ratification. The United States of America will then be the last nation-state in the world to ratify the first universally ratified human rights treaty in history.

Works Cited

Books

CQ Researcher, Children's Legal Rights, Kenneth Jost, April 23, 1993

The State of the World's Children, United Nations Fund, editor P&L Adamson Oxford University Press. 1992 pp. 15, 35-36

Journals

Foreign Affairs, Sidelined on Human Rights; America Bows out, Kenneth Roth. March/April 1998

Foreign Affairs, Paradigm Lost, Richard N. Haass Jan/Feb 1995 vol 74. Number 1

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International labor, By the Sweat and Toil Vol 1 1994

Yale Law Journal, Presumptions about children's capacities, Patricia Vardin, 1977 vol 86 no. 7