Why Won't the US Ratify the CRC Treaty?

All members of the United Nations are parties of the CRC treaty except the United States, read below to find out why.

Recognizing a need for a legal standard of protection and aide to children around the world, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1989. Initially, only 20 countries ratified the CRC, but by 2009, 193 countries had ratified it, leaving two countries remaining— one being the United States. The CRC certainly has positives, but there are a handful of key drawbacks that are preventing the US from ratifying it: a potential infringement on sovereignty, infringement on the rights of parents, a cost on the government and US citizens, and infringement on legal rights.

One of the main reasons why US refuses to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child (or the CRC) is that it encroaches on U.S. sovereignty. Currently, under the American Constitution, all power not given directly to the federal government belongs to the states. If the treaty were ratified this power would be taken away from the states. Federal laws could be applied to issues traditionally handled by each individual state. The result of this would be undermining of the U.S. system of federalism -- a very important concern. Since, under the U.S. constitution, ratified treaties are superior to both national and local laws if the treaty is ratified it would mean that a panel of 18 independent experts would have authority over the actions of the U.S. government and the American citizen’s actions towards their children. The ruling of an international law is an issue because it eliminates laws formed as the result of constitutional democracy.

People are also opposed to the ratification of treaty because it would encroach on individual's sovereignty. A specific example of this is that the CRC would violate parent’s rights. The treaty would intrude upon parent’s rights by allowing the government to control many aspects of a child’s life. For example, every child has a “right to be heard” under the treaty, which means they can seek government involvement for every decision their parent makes. Yet, granting a toddler the ability to do so would be both a violation of their parent’s right, and a waste of the government’s time. Another problematic aspect of the CRC is it grants autonomous rights to children, despite parents possible objections. Controversial topics such as whether or not children should be allowed to access sexual information and abortion would be predetermined by the CRC. Children would have the right to reproductive services without parental knowledge and consent. The CRC would also allow the government to intervene in the lives of families without needing proof that the actions of the parents are harmful. The ability of the government to act in such a way is completely contradictory to the laws that are in place currently that require there to be proof or harm before the government can intervene.  Hence, the fact that US refuses to sign the treaty may actually be a good thing. For one, it is a testament to the country’s advanced children’s welfare services. The fact that signing the treaty would do more harm than good proves that many of the fundamental rights of children are already protected in the US.

Another main reason the US will not ratify the CRC is the cost it would put on the government and its citizens. Some worry that by ratifying the CRC, and thereby legally abiding by its rules, there will be lawsuits fighting for the government to subsidize costs that will arise from the ratification of the treaty. If the government is required to handle subsidize these lawsuits, the US’s citizens will likely be on the back end of the costs, potentially paying for them through increased taxes, no matter if they have children being protected under the CRC or not. Lawsuits would likely arise, too, from parents fighting for their rights in the children’s lives. This would put a heavy price tag on parents who want to stay a part of their children’s lives and what they have access to.

There is concern from some Americans that the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of The Child would endanger National Sovereignty. The reason for this concern is the Second Clause of Article 6 of the United States Constitution, the “Supremacy Clause.” The Supremacy Clause establishes that The Constitution, Treaties, and Federal Laws constitute the supreme law of the land and that States must abide by these laws.  The Supreme Court has established that the Constitution has supremacy over both Federal Laws and International Treaties. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reserves those rights which are not expressly given to the Federal Government, nor restricted from the states, for the states. Many issues relating to children’s welfare have been reserved for the states, and many believe that the legislative powers which the states have previously exercised in this realm would be stripped from them if the CRC were to be ratified. This concern is legitimate; however, it disregards the use of Reservations in International Treaties, caveats that a country gives when enacting an international treaty. Through the use of Reservations, the United States could ratify the CRC while cutting short some of its more concerning measures. All of the consequences that might come from the ratification of the CRC cannot be known, until or if it happens. Ultimately the Judicial branch of the American government would have to rule on its implementation. The ability for the Judicial branch to essentially dictate implementation has been and remains to be a concern for many, as for them the possibility of judicial activism is too great.

No one is against the rights and protection of Children. Critics just don’t believe that having a potentially harmful treaty is better than having no treaty at all. The current laws in America are already protecting the rights of Children without the additional requirements found in the CRC that could lead to potential dangerous outcomes.

UNICEF Club contributors: Charlotte Novy, Grace Gonzalez, Anisha Reddy, and Harrison Siders

Join the OHS Unicef Team to learn more about these important issues, and to educate and advocate on Unicef’s behalf by working on all kinds of different projects. We hope to see you there! Contact Aino Alkio (skype: anskua00 or email:

aino.alkio@hotmail.co) if you’d like to join us.