Why has the United States of America not Ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? The veto fulcrum as a new health policy analysis framework
Harris, L.
Show abstract
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) enshrines health as a human right among other rights for children, the fulfillment of which can be advanced by each member state legally endorsing the principles through ratification of the Convention. The most rapidly and widely ratified human rights treaty in history, only the United States of America of all of the UN state parties has not ratified the CRC. This study aimed to determine the reason(s) the CRC has not been ratified by the USA. Method design involved a mapping literature search and in-depth interviews with key stakeholders in the fields of global health, child rights, health policy, and US law. Implementing Walt and Gilsons health policy triangle to systematize themes into content, context, processes, and actors as opposition or proponents of ratification, finds the literature favors ratification of the CRC. Critically, published literature focuses on pros and cons of ratification of the CRC, rather than reasons why the US has not ratified. Interview informants further expanded themes to elucidate how the history of opposition actors and processes has led to a chilling effect and a status quo of non- ratification, which has become increasingly challenging to overcome. Drawing on Tsebelis veto player theory to explain the status quo and introducing a new policy analysis framework of a veto fulcrum reveals that within the process of ratification, single powerful actors at a veto fulcrum have made undemocratic decisions, obstructing CRC ratification. By investigating American non-ratification of the CRC this research has forged a new policy framework, the veto fulcrum, which examines political systems where political actors - who might even be democratically elected - as veto players have extraordinary power to make executive decisions against public opinion, and against good health policy.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The Pandemic Journaling Project: A new dataset of first-person accounts of the COVID-19 pandemic 93%
- Key topics in pandemic health risk communication: A qualitative study of expert opinions and knowledge 93%
- COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and refusal and associated factors in an adult population in Saskatchewan, Canada: Evidence from predictive modelling 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Navigating vaccination choices: The intersecting dynamics of institutional trust, belonging and message perception among Congolese migrants in the UK (A reflexive thematic analysis) 93%
- Architecture of systems affecting disease trajectories in a conflict zone: A community-centered systems inquiry in North Gaza 92%
- The cascading impacts of attacks on health in Syria: A qualitative study of health system and community impacts 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- A rapid review of COVID-19 vaccine prioritization in the U.S.: alignment between Federal guidance and State practice 91%
- Experience of the COVID-19 pandemic in rural Odisha, India: knowledge, preventative actions, and impacts on daily life 91%
- Knowledge and practices towards COVID-19 during its outbreak: a multinational cross-sectional study 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Cross-sector Decision Landscape in Response to COVID-19: A Qualitative Analysis of North Carolina Decision-Makers 91%
- How does public knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors correlate in relation to COVID-19? A community-based cross-sectional study in Nepal 91%
- Health Belief, Planned Behavior, or Psychological Antecedents: What predicts COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy better among the Bangladeshi Adults? 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Public engagement and crowdfunding for health research: A global qualitative evidence synthesis and TDR pilot 91%
- Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries 91%
- When do persuasive messages on vaccine safety steer COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and recommendations? Behavioral insights from a randomised controlled experiment in Malaysia 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.