Legal rights of the child: the United States and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

The United States stands alone in its refusal to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a treaty ratified by every other member state of the United Nations, which currently has 196 states parties. Article 37(a) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states: “Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age.”

Download Full-text

Children’s Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

PEDIATRICS ◽

10.1542/peds.112.s3.742 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 112 (Supplement_3) ◽

pp. 742-745

Author(s):

Jeffrey Goldhagen

Keyword(s):

Child Health ◽

United Nations ◽

Health Outcomes ◽

Children's Rights ◽

The United States ◽

Children’S Rights ◽

Child Health Outcomes ◽

Rights Of The Child ◽

United Nations Convention ◽

The United Nations

The Issue. Disparities and inequities characterize the health and social well-being of children in the United States and the United Kingdom. Children’s rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are among the most powerful tools available to respond to and increase the relevance of pediatrics to contemporary disparities and determinants of child health outcomes. The articles of the convention establish the framework for a redefinition of what constitutes child health. The convention establishes a template for child advocacy, a matrix for establishing new approaches to health services, a curriculum for professional education, and a set of challenges for future child health outcomes and health systems research.

Download Full-text

The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Guide to Research and Literature

International Journal of Legal Information ◽

10.1017/s0731126500000068 ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 24 (1) ◽

pp. 48-70

Author(s):

Claire M. Germain

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

United Nations ◽

The United States ◽

Fundamental Principle ◽

Freedom Of Contract ◽

Opt Out ◽

United Nations Convention ◽

The United Nations ◽

International Sale Of Goods

On January 1, 1988, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (the Convention) became effective in the United States. In general, the Convention (also referred to as the “Vienna Sales Convention,” the “Sales Convention,” the “CISG,” or the “UN Convention”) applies to contracts for the sale of goods between enterprises having their places of business in different countries, provided these countries have adopted the Convention. Freedom of contract, however, is a fundamental principle of the Convention, and the parties may opt out or modify the effects of its provisions.

Download Full-text

The United States Parol Evidence Rule under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods

International Trade & Business Law Annual Vol III ◽

10.4324/9781843143253-6 ◽

1997 ◽

pp. 70-119

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

United Nations ◽

The United States ◽

United Nations Convention ◽

The United Nations ◽

International Sale Of Goods

Download Full-text

The U.N. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Issue Preclusion: A Traditional Collateral Estoppel Determination

University of Pittsburgh Law Review ◽

10.5195/lawreview.2004.9 ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 65 (4) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sabrina M. Sudol

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

United Nations ◽

The United States ◽

Commercial Arbitration ◽

International Commercial Arbitration ◽

Recognition And Enforcement ◽

United Nations Convention ◽

Per Se ◽

The United Nations ◽

Commercial Disputes

Although the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards provides for the “recognition” and “enforcement” of non-domestic arbitral awards in commercial disputes,1 this article will show that in order for an issue resolved through arbitration to be granted preclusive effect in subsequent litigation in the United States, the proponent must also satisfy the traditional requirements of collateral estoppel. In this way, the Convention’s reach is not quite as expansive as a party might expect, for the ensuing judicial analysis often involves complex questions of law and fact while maintaining respect for the favored status of international commercial arbitration. The result is far from per se preclusivity.

Download Full-text