Les droits de l’enfant. Genèse, institutionnalisation et diffusion (1924-1989)

Studying childhood, children, and their rights: The challenge of interdisciplinarity

“…(p. 5) This historical convergence between the activities conducted in the field of CS and those carried out by the children's rights movement is regularly underlined, as in the introduction of The Routledge International Handbook of Children's Rights Studies (Reynaert et al, 2015; see also Alanen, 2010;Freeman, 1998Freeman, , 2012. Although the historical developments of children's rights and CRS cannot be summed up to a movement implementing in practice and policy ideas developed on an academic level (see notably Dekker, 2009;Hofstetter, 2012;Moody, 2014Moody, , 2016, it does seem that the new child image or new childhood paradigm, as referred to in the literature, is a point of encounter between CS and CRS. Qvortrup et al (2009b: 4-6) discern five characteristics of this new childhood paradigm, which could theoretically apply to both fields: (1) The study of "normal" childhood, in opposition to previous trends focusing mainly on children deviating from what was seen as desirable conditions or on children encountering problems; (2) A critique of the conventional socialization perspective, "to enhance the visibility of children here and now, […] and to understand, […] children and their life worlds in their own right" (Qvortrup et al, 2009b: 5); (3) Agency and voice for children, CS scholars aim to look into the prejudices children face being "reduced to vulnerable people to be protected" and therefore never considered as "participants in the larger social fabric" (Qvortrup et al, 2009b: 5); ( 4) Structural constraints on childhood, taking into account parameters such as economics, technology, urbanization, and so on to study childhood and also to compare how various contexts impact childhood; and (5) The use of ordinary social scientific methods to study children and childhood, rejecting the idea that studying children necessarily requires specific methods, allowing to overcome their "[conceptual incarceration] in a microworld […] of particularism" (Qvortrup et al, 2009b: 6).…”

“…This historical convergence between the activities conducted in the field of CS and those carried out by the children’s rights movement is regularly underlined, as in the introduction of The Routledge International Handbook of Children’s Rights Studies (Reynaert et al, 2015; see also Alanen, 2010; Freeman, 1998, 2012). Although the historical developments of children’s rights and CRS cannot be summed up to a movement implementing in practice and policy ideas developed on an academic level (see notably Dekker, 2009; Hofstetter, 2012; Moody, 2014, 2016), it does seem that the new child image or new childhood paradigm , as referred to in the literature, is a point of encounter between CS and CRS.…”

“…First, CRS are concerned by “normal” as well as vulnerable childhood and by how children’s rights apply in various contexts. While CRS have very broadly benefited from the urge to overcome the sole focus on “at-risk” children, progressively including equal human rights in addition to special protection provisions in legal documents (Hanson, 2012; Moody, 2016), the rights perspective leads researchers to admit that “different and even competing childhood images can coexist in one single person ” (Desmet et al, 2015: 414). In a feedback loop, CS can build upon this understanding to overcome some criticized dichotomies—such as childhood versus childhoods (James, 2010)—and more specifically find greater coherence between the first and fourth characteristics of this paradigm (“normal” childhood and the impact of context).…”

Direitos humanos e infância: construindo a Convenção sobre os Direitos da Criança (1978-1989)

“…Therefore, it is worth emphasizing the need to dialogue with other fields of knowledge, especially with Public International Law. Among the studies that focus on this theme, stand out: a) that by the German International Relations researcher Anna Holzscheiter (2010), which address the characteristics of discourse observed in the Convention on the Rights of the Child; b) that by the Swiss educator Zoe Moody (2016), which brings an analysis of the emergence and diffusion of the international treaties' discourse produced by the League of Nations and the UN concerning childhood between 1924 and 1989; c) that by the German researcher Manfred Liebel (2010), on the theoretical assumptions that underpinned the building of Childhood Law during the last hundred years; and d) that by the Chilean sociologist Francisco Pilotti (2001), which analyzes the circulation of this treaty's utterances globally, as well as infers about the criticism made by various social players regarding the childhood perspective spread by this international standard.…”

Sobre a oitiva de crianças e adolescentes na justiça:

“…As discussões que deram origem ao tratado tiveram seu início em 1978, com a apresentação de um anteprojeto elaborado pelo jurista polonês Adam Lopatka. A emergência da normativa internacional está associada sobretudo a dois processos históricos: a instituição do -ano internacional da criança‖ pela Organização das Nações Unidas, celebrado em 1979, o que colocou em cena em nível global as -questões‖ socioeconômicas e políticas enfrentadas por crianças e adolescentes (MOODY, 2016); e, como segundo processo, uma parte dos -resultados‖ das disputas ocorridas durante a guerra fria entre os polos em disputa, os quais atuaram no campo do Direito Internacional Público relativo aos tratados na área dos direitos humanos (HOLZSCHEITER, 2010). Tais debates findaram, por sua vez, em 1989, produzindo uma normativa internacional com 54 artigos, que tratam dos denominados direitos civis, sociais, culturais e políticos das crianças.…”