Search

This article analyses the approach of key international actors to the circumcision of children, seeking, first, to understand why the policy towards the circumcision or genital cutting of girls is so different from that towards boys. As part of this project, the article considers the literature on the situation in international law, concluding that the legal position is unclear and debatable. The article notes, however, that the policy difference is justified not by key actors by reference to international law but instead by reference to their theoretical understanding of how dynamics of gender and power infuse the genital cutting of girls. The article suggests that this approach is deficient because it can only compute inter-gender harm and not intra-gender harm, with the consequence that it fails to protect boy children from harms, which a better crafted theoretical model of gender and sexuality would capture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recent judgment by a lower court in Germany brought the problem of ritual male circumcision to the consciousness of the wider public and legal academia. This essay weighs in on this emerging discussion and argues that ritual male circumcision is not covered by parental authority. It first considers and dismisses the best interest of the child test, which is the most widely used test of parental authority in legal practice. Instead, the essay proposes what it terms the autonomy conception of parental authority, according to which parental authority must be exercised such as to ensure that the child will become an autonomous adult. While parents may raise their child in line with their ethical, including religious, convictions, respect for his autonomy requires that this be done in a way that allows the child to later distance himself from these values; this implies, among other things, that irreversible physical changes are impermissible. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the ethical and legal aspects, and the children's rights issues, concerning non-therapeutic male circumcision, within the context of the debate between the association Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC), the U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) over the issue. The authors contend that the pain caused by circumcision makes it unethical, including the pain caused to the penis foreskin. The role that parents play in their sons' circumcisions is discussed.

The ever increasing use of children's rights discourse in national, regional and international political institutions can perhaps be seen as a sign of the success of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ("CRC"), and of the internalization of the concept that children are independent rights holders, the ideological basis of the doctrine of children's rights. Nevertheless, there is evidence that some advocates of children's rights in the political arena are taking an over-simplistic, uni-dimensional approach to children's rights which results in misrepresentation of the true interests of children. This risk is well illustrated by the recent resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe ("PACE") resolution entitled "Children's Right to Physical Integrity," which inter alia expressed concern about the violation of the right to the physical integrity of young boys circumcised for religious reasons and made recommendations that States should consider placing restrictions on this practice. This Article uses the PACE resolution as a platform for examining the pitfalls inherent within the doctrine of children's rights, specifically as given effect to by the CRC, that make it susceptible to misuse in the political arena. The recent 25th anniversary of the signing of the CRC is a timely occasion for a discussion of some of its deficiencies that include definitional problems, selectivity and the indeterminacy of the best interests standard. In addition, the paper explains how these pitfalls were exacerbated by serious flaws in the PACE's decision-making mechanism and suggests changes which might be made at the institutional level to reduce the risks involved in children's rights discourse in the political arena. Whilst the Article does in fact deconstruct the claims that religious male circumcision violates children's rights, the implications of the analysis are far wider than the ritual circumcision debate. This analysis is particularly pertinent to the children's rights implications of all types of decisions made by parents in relation to the rearing of their children, which do not conform to the norms prevalent in Western society. More broadly, the analysis demonstrates the need to rethink how the complex multi-layered doctrine of children's rights can be refined in such a way that it can practicably be used to inform decision-making in the political arena. In addition, many of the insights in relation to the problems associated with children's rights discourse in the political arena are also of relevance in relation to human rights discourse in general. It is to be hoped that increased understanding of the pitfalls inherent in the CRC will lead to greater caution in the use of children's rights discourse in the political arena, inter alia by the introduction of appropriate safeguards, and provide an impetus for the search for solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]