{"id":14627,"date":"2021-06-30T08:00:05","date_gmt":"2021-06-30T06:00:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/?p=14627"},"modified":"2021-06-30T15:49:47","modified_gmt":"2021-06-30T13:49:47","slug":"the-kids-arent-alright","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/the-kids-arent-alright\/","title":{"rendered":"The Kids Aren\u2019t Alright"},"content":{"rendered":"

People who walked along the East River in mid-March towards the UN\u2019s headquarters in New York found a peculiar picture<\/u>: 168<\/u> empty<\/u> school tables<\/u> with blue UNICEF school bags on them. In front, a chalkboard which read: Class Attendance \u2013 Absent: 168 Million Children. This thrilling number, twice the size of the German<\/u><\/a> population, is a brisk reminder of COVID-19\u2019s detrimental impact on children\u2019s rights which went largely unnoticed. This blog post offers some brief reflections on the effect of 15 months of COVID-19 on children\u2019s rights to education and mental health.<\/p>\n

Children\u2019s <\/strong>R<\/strong>ight to <\/strong>E<\/strong>ducation<\/strong><\/p>\n

The most visible infringement pertains to children\u2019s human right to education.\u00a0In March, UNICEF estimated<\/u><\/a> that for roughly 168 million children worldwide schools had been closed for over a year due to lockdowns. At the same time, only one in three children could\u00a0attend school\u00a0remotely;\u00a0approximately 463 million children<\/u><\/a>\u00a0had no connection to their schools and, hence, one third of all children had no access to a quality education.<\/p>\n

Of course, states had a reasonable justification for their sweeping measures – after all, they were trying to contain a deadly virus, which has claimed millions of lives. But is upending millions of children\u2019s educations a necessary and proportionate measure in the fight against COVID-19?<\/p>\n

Children\u2019s right to education is most prominently enshrined in Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights<\/u><\/a> (ICESCR) and Article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child<\/u><\/a> (in addition to numerous regional treaties and national constitutions). Article 28 of the CRC grants states a far-reaching discretion concerning the contents and methods of education provided that they are appropriate to achieve the aims of education enumerated in Article 29 (see here<\/u><\/a> pp. 1062 et seq.). Although Article 28 seems to presume some form of in-person schooling, this is in fact not required. Thus, the transition to online school or lessons via radio and TV is not per se<\/em> inconsistent with children\u2019s right to education.<\/p>\n

However, as the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education and the ESCR Committee have elaborated<\/u><\/a>, the quality of the remote education needs to satisfy the so-called \u201c4A-framework\u201d (here<\/u><\/a>, para. 6). Accordingly, education needs to be available, accessible, acceptable, <\/em>and adaptable<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>to fulfill states\u2019 obligations under Article 28. It is in this context that COVID-19 jeopardizes children\u2019s education.<\/p>\n

For one, the availability<\/em> of an adequate education is limited to those children,\u00a0who have the technological\u00a0means to attend online school (the so-called \u201cdigital divide<\/u><\/a>,\u201d here<\/u><\/a> pp. 56-85). Already in April 2020, the German Economic Institute detailed<\/u><\/a> how children, whose parents receive social security, usually had limited access to shared computers and workspaces. Moreover, the accessibility<\/em> of education can be severely limited for people in rural areas without any telecommunication connections (here<\/u><\/a>, p. 11), or persons with disabilities (e.g., visual or hearing impairments; here<\/u>, p. 11). Preliminary studies already show that the acceptability<\/em>\/quality of education has also suffered all around the world due to less hours of instruction in fewer subjects and due to the fact that students were often left to learn on their own (see here<\/u><\/a> pp. 86-93). Analyzing foundational reading skills for 9-14 years old children, UNICEF found that those affected by school closures and distance learning were far behind their peers in previous years (here<\/u><\/a>, p. 9).<\/p>\n

Furthermore,\u00a0the in-person school environment\u00a0is crucial for the realization of other rights of the child. For instance, many children receive their only hot meal at school, sparing them from malnutrition and securing their right to an adequate standard of living (Article 27 CRC, here<\/u><\/a> pp. 104 et seq.). For some children schools are the only safe learning environment<\/u><\/a>\u00a0where they can focus on their education free from domestic abuse, the dangers of armed conflicts or\u00a0other distractions (realizing their right to be protected from all forms of violence in Article 19 and their right to development in Article 6(2) CRC).\u00a0Even more alarmingly, early evidence gathered and reviewed by the ILO<\/u><\/a> and UNICEF<\/u><\/a> suggests that school closures are correlated with an unprecedented increase in child labor<\/u><\/a> and child marriages<\/u><\/a>. All these factors will lead to\u00a0increase<\/u>d<\/u>\u00a0<\/u>long-term dropout rates<\/u><\/a> and rising numbers of children whose educational careers\u00a0were abruptly stopped before they even started.<\/p>\n

Children\u2019s <\/strong>R<\/strong>ight to (<\/strong>M<\/strong>ental) <\/strong>H<\/strong>ealth<\/strong><\/p>\n

Although children are significantly less likely to contract<\/u><\/a> a severe COVID-19 infection, their mental<\/u><\/a> and physical health suffered<\/u><\/a> significantly during the pandemic. All around the world children\u2019s access to routine\u00a0pediatric care continues to be significantly interrupted<\/u><\/a>\u00a0\u2013 with chronically ill and disabled children worst affected. One visible effect is, for instance, a global decline<\/u><\/a> in childhood\u00a0vaccination rates<\/u><\/a>. At the same time, some reports show an increase in domestic\u00a0violence\u00a0(see here<\/u><\/a> and here<\/u><\/a>).<\/p>\n

As if this was not bad enough, the pandemic\u2019s most detrimental impact concerns children\u2019s mental health. While children\u2019s right to health clearly includes a right to mental <\/strong>health (see here<\/u><\/a>, para. 35; here<\/u><\/a>, and here<\/u><\/a>), governments and news agencies in various countries have been ringing the alarm bells about children\u2019s mental well-being after a year of social isolation (e.g., here<\/u><\/a>, here<\/u><\/a>, and here<\/u><\/a>). Widespread symptoms\u00a0include<\/u><\/a> depression, anxiety, substance abuse,\u00a0or even suicide.<\/p>\n

That it had to come to this point is mainly due to the fact that states neglected children\u2019s entitlements under their right to health (Article 24 of the CRC).<\/p>\n

While the ESCR Committee clarified that \u201cthe right to health is not to be understood as a right to be healthy\u201d (here<\/u><\/a>, para. 8), the CRC Committee interprets Article 24 as an entitlement for children, and an obligation for states vice versa \u201cto enjoy conditions that will maximize the potential for a child to enjoy his or her health in the light of their personal circumstances and the resources available to a state\u201d (here<\/u><\/a>, pp. 106 et seq.). Quite similar to Article 28, the ESCR and CRC Committees have developed a so-called \u201c3AQ-framework\u201d to clarify states duties under Article 24 (here<\/u><\/a>, para. 12; and here<\/u><\/a>, paras. 112-116). The 3AQ-standard builds on the availability, accessibility, acceptability, <\/em>and quality<\/em> of health care for children.<\/p>\n

The prima facie<\/em> evidence reviewed above suggests that most states deliberately neglected children\u2019s entitlements in this regard. For instance, despite rising numbers of children in need of psychological<\/u><\/a> or psychiatric<\/u><\/a> treatment, even the most developed countries appear to be overwhelmed<\/u><\/a>. In terms of availability<\/em>, specialists<\/u><\/a> and specialized clinics<\/u><\/a> often do not have enough spots. And even if treatment would theoretically be available, in many states mental health care is economically inaccessible<\/em>\u00a0since it is not covered<\/u><\/a> by most health insurances.<\/p>\n

Some of the consequences of disregarding children\u2019s health during the pandemic are already visible in the form of significantly increased anxiety and depression rates<\/u><\/a>, suicide attempts<\/u><\/a> or other mental health conditions<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Justifying Limits on Children\u2019s Rights during a Global Pandemic<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is true that most rights in the CRC, including the rights to education and health, are not absolute and states are allowed to derogate from them during a national emergency (here<\/u><\/a>, pp. 138 et seqq.) or otherwise limit them for a legitimate reason such as public health. Of course, any sort of derogation is only justifiable if it is necessary and proportionate. At the moment, however, medical<\/u><\/a> experts,\u00a0politicians<\/u><\/a>, lawyers<\/u><\/a> and academics<\/u><\/a> alike, seem to disagree about which measures are necessary and proportionate to contain COVID-19 on a daily basis.<\/p>\n

Fortunately, the CRC contains at least three additional safeguards, which require states to (1) consult children\u2019s views (Article 12 CRC), (2) respect the principle of non-discrimination (Article 2 CRC), and (3) treat their best interests as a primary consideration (Article 3 CRC) whenever states take any derogating\/limiting\/retrogressive measures on rights in the CRC.<\/p>\n

After the above analysis, it is a fair assessment that it remains a challenge for states to react to COVID-19\u00a0without inadvertently privileging adults over children, rural areas over cities, poorer parts of the population over wealthier ones and thus engaging in indirect discrimination. Additionally, when policymakers decide on specific measures, children\u2019s views ought to be\u00a0considered and their best interests need to be taken into account in accordance with Articles 12 and 3(1) of the CRC.<\/p>\n

In this light, the measures assessed above which states adopted to curb the spread of the virus are hardly justifiable under the CRC and have a detrimental effect on children\u2019s rights and well-being. Already months ago, some of the world\u2019s leading scientists, including Nobel laureates and Ivy-League professors, advocated<\/u><\/a> for a more sensible and impact-focused fight against the virus. I join the call that children\u2019s rights, their views and best interests should be added to the list of priorities.\u00a0While COVID-19 seems to come to an end in much of the developed world, it will continue to rage for months \u2013 if not even years \u2013 in countries, which do not yet have widespread access to vaccines. Simply putting children\u2019s rights on hold is neither a sustainable nor a lawful strategy against a global pandemic.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

People who walked along the East River in mid-March towards the UN\u2019s headquarters in New York found a peculiar picture: 168 empty school tables with blue UNICEF school bags on them. In front, a chalkboard which read: Class Attendance \u2013 Absent: 168 Million Children. This thrilling number, twice the size of the German population, is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6639],"tags":[],"authors":[6039],"article-categories":[5108],"doi":[],"class_list":["post-14627","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","authors-jan-phillip-graf","article-categories-bofaxe"],"acf":{"subline":"One Year of Pandemic Restrictions on Children's Rights"},"meta_box":{"doi":"10.17176\/20210630-112653-0"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14627","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14627"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14627\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14630,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14627\/revisions\/14630"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14627"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14627"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14627"},{"taxonomy":"authors","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/authors?post=14627"},{"taxonomy":"article-categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article-categories?post=14627"},{"taxonomy":"doi","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/doi?post=14627"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}