The UN Children’s Rights Convention and the Capabilities Approach – Family Duties and Children’s Rights in Tension

  • Zoë ClarkEmail author
  • Holger Ziegler
Part of the Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research book series (CHIR, volume 8)


The contribution critically assesses the role of the family and the state in the UNCRC. Focusing on those articles of the UNCRC which relate children’s rights to parent’s rights and duties it reconstructs the (implicit) normativity of the UNCRC towards the institution of the family and towards power relations within families. It is suggested that some of these normative foundations are not convincingly justified. Referring to the capabilities approach and feminist considerations on social justice the article argues that the strong family orientation of the UNCRC does not only bring forth a reduced approach to child welfare but also challenges expectations towards the UNCRC as catalyst of a participatory view on children as agentic subjects with rights.


Young People Legal Guardian Capability Approach Private Sphere Welfare Provision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Andresen, S., Meiland, S., Milanovic, D., & Blume, J. (2013). Erfahrungen und Erleben von Armut aus der Sicht von Kindern. “Ich würde meiner Familie was schenken und dafür sorgen, dass sie nicht so viel in Schwierigkeiten sind”. Unserer Jugend, 3, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andresen, S., Otto, H.-U., & Ziegler, H. (2008). Bildung as human development: An educational view on the capabilities approach. In H.-U. Otto & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Capabilities – Handlungsbefähigung und Verwirklichungschancen in der Erziehungswissenschaft (pp. 165–197). Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archard, D., & Skivenes, M. (2009). Balancing a child’s best interest and a child’s view. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 17, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballet, J., Biggeri, M., & Comim, F. (2011). Children’s agency and the capability approach: A conceptual framework. In M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, & F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the capability approach (pp. 22–45). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Bartelheimer, P. (2009). Verwirklichungschancen als Maßstab lokaler Sozialpolitik? Sozialer Fortschritte, 2(3), 48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biggeri, M., Ballet, J., & Comim, F. (2011). Children’s agency and the capability approach: A conceptual framework. In M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, & F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the capabilities approach (pp. 22–45). London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonvin, J.-M. (2009). Der Capability Ansatz und sein Beitrag für die Analyse gegenwärtiger Sozialpolitik. Soziale Passagen, 1, 8–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P. (1979). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Brumlik, M., & Keckeisen, W. (1976). Etwas fehlt. Zur Kritik und Bestimmung von Hilfsbedürftigkeit für die Sozialpädagogik. Kriminologisches Journal, 4, 241–262.Google Scholar
  10. Cherney, I., & Perry, N. (1996). Children’s attitudes toward their rights: An international perspective. In E. Verhellen (Ed.), Monitoring children’s rights (pp. 241–250). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, Z., & Eisenhuth, F. (2011). Beyond futurority – A capabilities perspective on childhood and youth. In O. Leßmann, H.-U. Otto, & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Closing the capabilities gap renegotiating social justice for the young (pp. 277–288). Opladen: Barabara Budrich.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, Z. (2014). Agency, participation and youth inequalities. In C. Hart, M. Biggeri, & B. Babic (Eds.), Agency and participation in childhood and youth. International applications of the capabilities approach in schools and beyond (pp. 83–100). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  13. Cockburn, T. (1998). Children and citizenship in Britain: A case for a socially interdependent model of citizenship. Childhood, 5, 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cockburn, T. (2001). Youth employment transitions and citizenship: A reflection on a local study of young people’s transition to employment in the North of England. Young, 9, 2–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cockburn, T. (2005). Children’s participation in social policy: Inclusion, chimera or authenticity? Social Policy and Society, 4, 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, G. A. (1993). Equality of what? On welfare, resources and capabilities. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 9–29). Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dworkin, G. (2010). Paternalism. In E. N. Zalta. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Summer 2010 edition.
  18. Fraser, N. (2008). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fraser, N. (2010). Who counts as a subject of justice? National citizenry, global humanity, or transnational community of risk? In H. G. Soeffner et al. (Eds.), Unsichere Zeiten. Herausforderungen gesellschaftlicher Transformationen (pp. 717–733). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freeman, M. (1994). Whither children: Protection, participation, autonomy? Manitoba Law Journal, 22, 307–327.Google Scholar
  21. Hart, J., & Boyden, J. (2007). The statelessness of the world’s children. Children & Society, 21, 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones, G. (2008). Youth, citizenship and the problem of dependence. In A. Invernizzi & J. Williams (Eds.), Children and citizenship (pp. 97–107). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Kittay, E. F. (1999). Love’s labor: Essays on women, equality, and dependency. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Kittay, E. F. (2011). The ethics of care, dependence, and disability. Ratio Juris, 24, 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lister, R. (1998). Citizenship and difference: Towards a differentiated universalism. European Journal of Social Theory, 1, 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lister, R. (2007a). From object to subject: Including marginalized citizens in policy making. Politics and Policy, 35, 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lister, R. (2007b). Why citizenship? where, when and how children? Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 8, 693–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lister, R., et al. (2003). Young people talk about citizenship: Empirical perspectives on theoretical and political debates. Citizenship Studies, 7, 235–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moran-Ellis, J. (2013). Children as social actors, agency, and social competence. Neue Praxis, 4, 323–338.Google Scholar
  30. Munos, L. G. (2010). Childhood welfare and rights of children. In S. Andresen, I. Diehm, H.-U. Otto, & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Children and the good life new challenges for research on children (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development. The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 2(3), 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Otto, H. U., Scherr, A., & Ziegler, H. (2013). On the normative foundation of social welfare – Capabilities as a yardstick for critical social work. In H. U. Otto & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Enhancing capabilities: The role of social institutions (pp. 197–230). Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  35. Pettit, P. (2001). Capability and freedom: A defence of Sen. Economics and Philosophy, 17, 1–20.Google Scholar
  36. Putnam, H. (2002). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sayer, A. (2005). The moral significance of class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sayer, A. (2009). Who’s afraid of critical social science? Current Sociology, 57, 767–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sen, A. (1980). Equality of what? In S. McMurrin (Ed.), Tanner lectures on human values (Vol. I, pp. 197–220). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  41. Stahl, R. M. (2007). “Don’t forget about me”: Implementing article 12 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law, 24, 803–842.Google Scholar
  42. Stern, M., & Seifert, S. (2013). Creative capabilities and community capacity. In H. U. Otto & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Enhancing capabilities: The role of social institutions (pp. 117–134). Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  43. Stoecklin, D. (2013). Theories of action in the field of child participation in search of explicit frameworks. Childhood: A Journal of Global Child Research, 4, 443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sünker, H. (1995). Gewalt, Kinderrechte und Kinderpolitik. Widersprüche, 58, 77–81.Google Scholar
  45. Quennerstedt, A. (2009). Balancing the rights of the child and the rights of parents in the convention on the rights of the child. Journal of Human Rights, 8(2), 162–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Quennerstedt, A. (2010). Children, but not really humans? Critical reflections on the hampering effect of the “3 p's”. International Journal of Children's Rights, 18, 619–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989, download: 28 May 2014.
  48. Van Bueren, G. (1998). The International Law on the rights of the child. Dordrecht: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  49. Verhellen, E. (1992). Het toezichtsinechanisme in de UNO-Conventie inzake de rechten van het kind. In T. de Boer et al. (Eds.), De kant van het kind. Liber Amicorum Prof. Miek de Langen (pp. 93–104). Arnhem: Gouda Quint.Google Scholar
  50. Verhellen, E. (1993). Children and participation rights. In R. Heiliö, E. Lauronen, & M. Bardy (Eds.), Politics of childhood and children at risk. Provision – Protection – Participation (pp. 49–65). Vienna: European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Sciences, Institut for Social Pedagogy and Adult EducationGoethe UniversityFrankfurt am MainGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of Pedagogy, Centre for Social Service StudiesBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations