Law and Philosophy

, Volume 31, Issue 5, pp 495–522 | Cite as

Sailing Alone: Teenage Autonomy and Regimes of Childhood

Open Access


Should society intervene to prevent the risky behavior of precocious teenagers even if it would be impermissible to intervene with adults who engage in the same risky behavior? The problem is well illustrated by the legal case of the 13-year-old Dutch girl Laura Dekker, who set out in 2009 to become the youngest person ever to sail around the world alone, succeeding in January 2012. In this paper we use her case as a point of entry for discussing the fundamental question of how to demarcate childhood from adulthood. After summarizing the case, we identify a ‘demarcation dilemma’ that frames much of the public and expert debate. On the one hand, it seems morally imperative ‘to treat like alike’, which means that both children and adults should be allowed to undertake all actions for which they have the relevant competences. On the other hand, requiring proportional treatment of children and adults seems to neglect the special nature of childhood as a distinct stage in life that ends at a specific age. We introduce the notion of a ‘regime of childhood’ to deal with this problem. This regime includes several dimensions, including the limited liability for children, the supervisory responsibilities of parents, the role of age-based thresholds, and the overarching purpose of childhood as a context for developing autonomy. We argue that, all things considered, there are good reasons not to shift to a regime that offers individual children the option of qualifying for adulthood on the basis of age-neutral criteria.



For feedback on previous versions of this essay, we wish to thank audiences at the annual meeting of the Dutch-Flemish Political Science Association, as well as at the University of Amsterdam’s Colloquium in Philosophy and Public Affairs, where we benefitted especially from Peter Rijpkema’s prepared remarks. Joel Anderson also gratefully acknowledges the Netherlands Institute of Advanced Study for the fellowship support during much of the writing of this paper. We also wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for pressing us to clarify several key points.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.


  1. Anderson, Joel. 2011. Autonomy, agency, and the self. In Jürgen habemas: Key concepts, edited by Barbara Fultner. Durham: Acumen Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Elizabeth and Richard Pildes. 2000. Expressive theories of law: A general restatement. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148 (5): 1503-75.Google Scholar
  3. Archard, David. 2004. Children, rights and childhood. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Boxill, Bernard, The Color-Blind Principle. In Blacks and Social Justice (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1992).Google Scholar
  5. Brighouse, Harry. 2003. How should children be heard? Arizona Law Review 45:691-711.Google Scholar
  6. Farson, Richard. 1974. Birthrights. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Feinberg, Joel. The Child’s Right to an Open Future. In Freedom & Fulfillment: Philosophical Essays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980).Google Scholar
  8. Feinberg, Joel. 1986. Harm to self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gardner, Chadwick. 1994. Don’t come cryin’to daddy! Emancipation of minors: When is a parent free at last from the obligation of child support. University of Louisville Journal of Family Law 33:927-948.Google Scholar
  10. Hohfeld, Wesley Newcomb. 1913. Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law Journal 23 (1):16-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holt, John C. 1974. Escape from childhood. New York: E.P. Dutton.Google Scholar
  12. Macleod, Colin. 2010. Primary goods, capabilities and children. In Measuring justice. Primary goods and capabilities, edited by Harry Brighouse and Ingrid Robeyns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Noggle, Robert. 2002. Special agents: Children’s autonomy and parental authority. In The moral and political status of children, edited by David Archard and Colin Macleod. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Noggle, Robert, and Samantha Brennan. 1997. The moral status of children: Children’s rights, parents’ rights, and family justice. Social Theory and Practice 23 (1):1-26.Google Scholar
  15. Scarre, Geoffrey. 1980. Children and paternalism. Philosophy 55 (211):117-124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schapiro, Tamar. 1999. What is a child? Ethics 109 (4):715-738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schapiro, Tamar. 2003. Childhood and personhood. Arizona Law Review 45:575-594.Google Scholar
  18. Schrag, Francis. 1977. The child in the moral order. Philosophy 52 (200):167-177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sunstein, Cass. 1995. On the expressive function of law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 144:2021-2053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Walzer, Michael. 1983. Spheres of justice. A defense of pluralism and equality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute of Political ScienceLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations