The crc as an instrument calls attention to children as a group. Yet paradoxically it has not resulted in explicit consideration of discrimination against children on the basis of childhood (i.e. detrimental treatment for being young/under 18) in the same way that has happened for other groups like women and ethnic minorities in instruments drafted specifically for their rights. Children are more likely to suffer poverty and violence than adults, and under-18s are largely excluded from national legislation prohibiting unfair discrimination. In this article the jurisprudence of the Committee on the Rights of the Child is examined and it is established that even though child-specific discriminatory practices such as corporal punishment are criticised by the Committee, they are seldom labelled ‘discrimination’ as such. The Committee reserves consideration of Article 2, which enshrines the principle of non-discrimination, for traditionally disadvantaged groups of children such as girls and ethnic minorities. It is concluded that Article 2 has great potential for drawing attention to detrimental treatment for being young/under 18, but that the phenomenon must be more explicitly referenced with greater frequency in law, practice, and scholarship.

This article reflects on intersections between intergenerational equity, children's rights and the rights of future generations. Recent climate cases involving children and youth are considered, and the fact that few rely on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is analysed. It is emphasised that intergenerational rights are children's rights – children are a crucial link between current and future generations. In particular the principle of the best interests of the child, which is widespread in national legal systems, should be relied upon more frequently in climate cases. Arguments can be made that failing to accord sufficient attention to children's rights and interests in climate policies violates the best interests principle. Relying on the CRC may increase the chance of successful outcomes in environmental and climate cases; progressing the right to a healthy environment for all. It will also ensure that adequate attention for children's rights is embedded in such cases.

Comprehensive sexuality education (known as Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) in England), which is age-appropriate, accurate, realistic and non-judgemental, is a tool that enables children and young people to make informed decisions about their sexual health, sexuality and well-being. As such, it is crucial towards the realisation of many of the rights of children under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, such as, but not limited to, the rights to information, education and health. However, in the English guidance on RSE, there is very little consideration of children’s rights, and the requirement to involve parents in the shaping of RSE curricula as well as the right for parents to withdraw children from sex education lessons potentially hinders children’s access to RSE. In this paper, we discuss the views and experiences of teachers and professional educators to ascertain the position of children’s rights in the National Guidance on RSE and in the everyday practice of teaching RSE. Their views and experiences assist us in understanding some of the motivators and barriers to teaching RSE from the perspective of children’s rights. In analysing the English approach to RSE, we used Bourke, Mallon and Maunsell’s framework and considered RSE rights under the UNCRC from the perspective of the right to education; rights in education and rights through RSE.

The climate crisis is a human rights crisis, and one of the worst affected groups is children and youth. This same group has been key to climate action in and outside of the courts. As well as engaging in numerous consultative fora such as cop, and in the introduction of a General Comment on the right of children to a healthy environment, they have gone on to become key litigators in climate cases/applications at both national and international level. These justice processes are, however, notoriously ill suited to the particular needs of children and youth. Child friendly justice is a concept which has been elaborated in recent years by the Council of Europe. Yet climate litigation is very different to the cases (e.g. in family law) in which children have traditionally been parties – amongst other things it can involve very public campaigns. This article considers child and youth friendly justice in the context of the climate crisis through the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and through the concepts of access, participation, interests, and judgments.

"A Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 15: The Right to Freedom of Association and to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly" published on 07 Apr 2016 by Brill | Nijhoff.

In this paper, it is argued that we are in a ‘postpaternalist’ era for children’s rights, involving grassroots action from children (for the first time, on a global scale) rather than well-meaning adults ‘giving’ children their rights. Child/youth climate action has involved under-18s acting for the environment through grassroots protest, media work and lobbying. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has arguably to date been approached in a paternalist way, whereby children need adults to help them to access rights. Yet, child/youth climate advocates have taken their own action, and demand equality as they enter rights spaces. They are frequently working with adults as equals and allies in litigating climate cases, for example. It is argued that (although there are rights challenges in a postpaternalist time) these young rights leaders have transformed human rights for the better, and adults should facilitate their work in a way that is child- and youth-friendly.