Suchergebnisse

This article offers an analysis of the child's right to be heard under Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its application in Norway, through a case study of bullying. The methodology combines a "top-down" legal interpretation of Article 12 in addition to an analysis of Section 9a of the Education Act, juxtaposed with bottom-up approaches. First, a legal analysis of Article 12 and the General Comments of the Convention on the Rights of the Child Committee is provided, with a view to demonstrating the strength of the connection between agency and voice. Looking from the bottom up, therefore, the article then pursues the voices of the bullied children themselves. It places its ear to the ground, so to speak, through an examination of complaints submitted by children to the Ombudsman for Children, in order to "hear" the voices of children subjected to bullying at school, before they are formulated in legal terms before judicial bodies. Finally, I offer a close reading of the report on Section 9a commissioned by the Norwegian Government, published in a 2015 Report (the "Djupedal Report") in tandem with the leading Supreme Court 2012 decision on bullying, so as to critically examine the fulfilment of Article 12 in Norway. In the final analysis, I argue that in Norwegian bullying cases, though the child has the legal right to be heard, there is no voice, due to the limitations of legal agency for children pursuant to Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This article offers an analysis of the child's right to be heard under Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its application in Norway, through a case study of bullying. The methodology combines a "top-down" legal interpretation of Article 12 in addition to an analysis of Section 9a of the Education Act, juxtaposed with bottom-up approaches. First, a legal analysis of Article 12 and the General Comments of the Convention on the Rights of the Child Committee is provided, with a view to demonstrating the strength of the connection between agency and voice. Looking from the bottom up, therefore, the article then pursues the voices of the bullied children themselves. It places its ear to the ground, so to speak, through an examination of complaints submitted by children to the Ombudsman for Children, in order to "hear" the voices of children subjected to bullying at school, before they are formulated in legal terms before judicial bodies. Finally, I offer a close reading of the report on Section 9a commissioned by the Norwegian Government, published in a 2015 Report (the "Djupedal Report") in tandem with the leading Supreme Court 2012 decision on bullying, so as to critically examine the fulfilment of Article 12 in Norway. In the final analysis, I argue that in Norwegian bullying cases, though the child has the legal right to be heard, there is no voice, due to the limitations of legal agency for children pursuant to Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This article offers an analysis of the child's right to be heard under Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its application in Norway, through a case study of bullying. The methodology combines a "top-down" legal interpretation of Article 12 in addition to an analysis of Section 9a of the Education Act, juxtaposed with bottom-up approaches. First, a legal analysis of Article 12 and the General Comments of the Convention on the Rights of the Child Committee is provided, with a view to demonstrating the strength of the connection between agency and voice. Looking from the bottom up, therefore, the article then pursues the voices of the bullied children themselves. It places its ear to the ground, so to speak, through an examination of complaints submitted by children to the Ombudsman for Children, in order to "hear" the voices of children subjected to bullying at school, before they are formulated in legal terms before judicial bodies. Finally, I offer a close reading of the report on Section 9a commissioned by the Norwegian Government, published in a 2015 Report (the "Djupedal Report") in tandem with the leading Supreme Court 2012 decision on bullying, so as to critically examine the fulfilment of Article 12 in Norway. In the final analysis, I argue that in Norwegian bullying cases, though the child has the legal right to be heard, there is no voice, due to the limitations of legal agency for children pursuant to Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Using ideology as heuristic, a legal sociological approach is employed to critically evaluate a child's legal status and its evolution since the eighteenth century. Four principal phases are identified: (1) legal ideology of individualism in the common law tradition; (2) movement from status to contract; (3) movement from status to rights; and (4) movement from status to agency. To strengthen legal agency both status and capacity are addressed. In the fourth phase, legal status has evolved in ways capable of facilitating children's legal agency; it has evolved from being static to being dynamic, and is now determined by reference to public international law, rather than territorially. This article advances a universal norm of legal capacity to sue for violations of human rights, which is derived from the recent developments in human rights law. In the evolution of children's rights we are presently witnessing the movement from status to agency.