The meanings of ‘child participation’ in international and European policies on children(’s rights): A content analysis

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore the meanings of ‘child participation’ in international and European policy agendas on children(’s rights). The premise here is that policy agendas informed by children’s rights principles have the power to shape what a child can (learn) to do and be in a given society. Furthermore, the policy agendas analysed in this study are underpinned by pedagogical assumptions concerning the socio-cultural construction of childhood as a category and the spaces of participation that are dedicated and/or conceded to flesh-and-blood children. It is crucially important to explore the meanings of the ‘child-participation’ duo of terms as they are used in policy documents, because the values and principles thus conveyed constitute the political framework within which micro-pedagogical learning experiences, involving both children and adults, are constructed.

Keywords

Child participation childhood policy United Nations European Commission Council of Europe content analysis pedagogical meanings

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to explore the meanings of ‘child participation’ in international and European policy agendas on children(’s rights).

The premise here is that policy agendas informed by children’s rights principles have the power to shape (Bell and Stevenson, 2006) what a child can do and be in a given society (Alessandrini, 2014). Furthermore, the policy agendas analysed in this study are underpinned by pedagogical assumptions concerning the socio-cultural construction of childhood as a category (Becchi, 1994) and the spaces of participation that are dedicated and/or conceded to flesh-and-blood children (Biffi, 2018; Macinai, 2013). It is crucially important to explore the meanings of the ‘child-participation’ duo of terms as they are used in policy documents, because the values and principles thus conveyed constitute the political framework within which micro-pedagogical learning experiences, involving both children and adults, are constructed (Bertolini, 2003a).

Much has been written about the phenomenon of child participation: between 1969 and 2016, scholars put forward a dozen models interpreting the meaning of public forms of child participation (Hussey, 2017, 2019); examined its benefits (Bruyere, 2010; Hart, 1992) and challenges (Mateos et al., 2017; Theobald et al., 2011; White, 1996); and discussed theoretical perspectives on it (Kay and Tisdall, 2010; Theis, 2010). Child participation has been investigated across multiple contexts: in the home (Brown and Johnson, 2008; Holland and O’Neill, 2006; Wrobel et al., 1996), in schools (Howe and Covell, 2007; Lansdown, 2010; Rudduck and Flutter, 2000) and in the wider community (Austin, 2010; Jamieson, 2010; Turkie, 2010), as well as in other more specific settings (Hart, 2004; Ray, 2010) and groups (Keller et al., 2005; McConachie et al., 2006).

Several analyses of children’s rights policies have been conducted. Notably, in 2010 the Belgian European Union (EU) Presidency issued ‘The European and international policy agendas on children, youth and children’s rights’ report, with the aim of providing an overview of policy agendas for children and youth at the European and international levels. The publication was updated in 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2018. These reports offer an inventory of the main children and youth policy agendas put forth by the EU, the Council of Europe (CoE) and the United Nations (UN) with the aim of influencing national government policies.

In light of this rich and complex framework, the present paper brings an original pedagogical perspective to bear on the meanings of child participation in policy agendas concerning children and their rights. Issues within policy agendas rarely rise to or fall from prominence without significant changes in how they are understood or what policies governments consider in relation to them (Baumgartner et al., 2006). Children as a category entered the ‘inner circle’ of policymaking in 1989 with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and since then there has been a growing emphasis on and commitment to this social category. John W Kingdon argued that major policy change occurs when problems, proposals and politics come together in a ‘window of opportunity’ (Baumgartner et al., 2006: 961) that focuses collective attention on problem and solution simultaneously (Kingdon, 1995). Hence, the aim of this paper is to describe and analyse the meanings that the UN, EU and CoE attributed to the child and children’s participation in society from 2010 to 2018, the most recent period for which we have access to official inventories of policy agendas concerning children and their rights.

The paper is divided into four parts:

The first section outlines the background to the study and the broader framework within which it was conducted, drawing out the connection between the child as a category and the participation of ‘flesh-and-blood’ children and their entry into policymaking.

The second section provides a description of the methodology and analytical approach adopted in the study.

The third section presents the results, organizing them thematically and by policy-agenda-setting body.

The fourth section offers a detailed discussion of the findings.

Finally, the conclusions section summarizes the main outcomes of the study, reflecting on how policy agendas currently shape the identity of childhood and children’s role in society and proposing perspectives for future research and policymaking.

Childhood and the inner circle of policymaking: first reflections on participation

Prior to 1989, the concept of children’s rights was often framed in terms of beliefs about the nature and needs of children and about adults’ responsibilities towards children. Traditionally, childhood was primarily defined as an infantile category: a state without logos, in the sense of language and thought. In other words, it was typically defined not by its essence but rather by what it lacked. This undermined children’s identity and meant that their peculiar needs and entitlement to specific rights or protections went unrecognized (Macinai, 2013). Philippe Ariès (1962) argued that childhood was not understood as a separate life stage until the 16th century. Only in the 1800s, thanks to economic, political, social and scientific changes, did a more positive idea of childhood come to the fore, although children continued to be viewed as weak and in need of protection, care and formation (Macinai, 2013). This did not mean that children were totally neglected or seen as incapable. On the contrary, ‘flesh-and-blood’ children were de facto partners in society: they often worked to contribute to their families’ survival and took part in public rituals, leaving many traces of their ‘beings’ and ‘doings’ (Becchi, 1994). Following the atrocities of World War II, children – who in the meantime had acquired protections under a large body of anti-exploitation laws (Biffi, 2017) – were attributed a key role in safeguarding the future of humanity.

This idea is embodied in the UNCRC and its three Optional Protocols: Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (2000); Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (2000); and Optional Protocol on a Communications Procedure (2011). In these documents, children were recognized as human subjects with individual rights who are capable of participating in society as agentic beings (Lansdown, 2001; Lundy, 2007; Shier, 2001). They were no longer depicted as ‘small adults’ or ‘objects’ of protection. A new subject – the child – had thus broken into the inner circle of policymaking, changing society’s image of childhood and the caregiving and educational practices previously implemented with children. Policy no longer framed the child as passive, but rather as a subject of rights, and hence as a participant in the policymaking process. Child participation has been one of the most debated aspects of the Convention since it was adopted, and clarity is still lacking. Although the UNCRC is the framework on which the analysed policy agendas and related documents are based, it does not itself cite participation as a right. Only in 2009 did General Comment No.12 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child link the UNCRC with the concept of participation: more specifically, the Committee declared that Article 12 of the UNCRC constitutes one of the four general principles – and therefore core values – of the Convention, together with the right to non-discrimination, the right to life and development, and consideration of the child’s best interests. The General Comment describes the meanings and significance of child participation as follows:

A widespread practice has emerged in recent years, which has been broadly conceptualized as ‘participation’, although this term itself does not appear in the text of article 12. This term has evolved and is now widely used to describe ongoing processes, which include information-sharing and dialogue between children and adults based on mutual respect, and in which children can learn how their views and those of adults are taken into account and shape the outcome of such processes. (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009: 5)

It may be said that General Comment No.12 frames participation as dialogue. In other words, participation is not seen here as being shaped by the efforts of individual children to assert claims, but rather as emerging from mutual interdependence, recognition and respect between children and adults (Fitzgerald et al., 2010: 293–305).

The child–adult relationship is of crucial importance from a pedagogical perspective, given that it impacts on the many educational choices that are made in the course of everyday life. Participation is also connected with agency, in that children are recognized as agents with the power to impact on processes (Pippa et al., 2021). However, this potential for agency is shaped by the ways in which adults listen to children and interpret and act upon their views (White and Choudhury, 2007). We therefore need to bear in mind the gap between children’s agency as defined or advocated for on paper and children’s actual lived experience (White, 1996). Finally, participation is a learning experience, whereby children are expected to ‘learn how their views and those of adults are taken into account and shape the outcome of [. . .] processes’ (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009: 5). From this perspective, (children’s) rights represent a principle, a mission and a challenge for pedagogy as well as politics (Cambi, 2003), insofar as the values and principles promoted in policy documents need to be learnt in order to be practised.

In sum, the meanings attributed to the socio-cultural category of the child profoundly impact on the meanings attributed to child participation: broadly speaking, throughout the history of childhood, fewer protections for children’s rights have corresponded to higher levels of socio-economic forms of child participation and vice-versa (Jans, 2004). It is crucial that we develop a deeper understanding of how childhood and participation are defined in contemporary policy documents, given that the meanings associated with this duo of terms shape what today’s children are learning to do and be, and thus how our society is developing.

Methodology

In the context of this paper, policy documents are defined as non-binding statements by key organizations that set out beacons for current and future policy on children(’s rights) (Van Vooren and Children’s Rights Knowledge Centre, 2019).

The paper qualitatively analyses the content (Berelson, 1952; Mayring, 2004) of the policy agendas put forth by the UN, EU and CoE over the period 2010–2018¹ in which policies on children and/or children’s rights were the primary focus.

At the international level, the UN, via the UNCRC (1989), Optional Protocols and related agendas provides the framework for the development of all other policy agendas concerning children and their rights. Furthermore, the UN, through the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), has its own mandate to protect the rights of all children.

In the European context, two main bodies formulate policy agendas concerning children and their rights: the EU and the CoE. These are separate entities that play different, yet complementary, roles while sharing the same fundamental values: human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Focusing on those core values, the CoE brings together governments from Europe and beyond, with the aim of agreeing minimum legal standards across a range of areas. It also monitors how well the countries apply these standards and provides technical assistance, often in collaboration with the EU, to help them do so. The EU is inspired by these same European values and often builds upon the CoE’s standards when drawing up legal instruments and agreements. It has acceded to the European Convention on Human Rights (European Court of Human Rights; CoE, 1950) as well as to other CoE agreements. Furthermore, the EU applies CoE standards and systems of monitoring in its dealings with neighbouring countries, many of which are CoE Member States.

In relation to children specifically, the two bodies also cooperate to raise awareness of children’s rights and to raise the legal standards protecting and promoting the rights of the child in Europe. Specifically, it is the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) of the EU (EU, 2000) that constitutes the legal basis for approaching children’s rights in the EU, as it creates links with the UNCRC. Specific reference to children’s participation is made in Article 24. The CoE’s framework of reference for approaching children’s rights is offered by the European Convention on Human Rights (European Court of Human Rights; CoE, 1950) – which does not make explicit reference to children but applies to all persons and thus also to children (Art. 1) – as well as by the European Social Charter (CoE, 1961) and the Revised European Social Charter (CoE, 1996), which complete the European Convention on Human Rights by addressing social and economic human rights. In the Revised Charter, two provisions concern children specifically: the right of children and young people to protection generically (Art. 7) and the right of children and young persons to social, legal, and economic protection (Art. 17).

The selection of the policy documents to be analysed was based on the most recent official inventory available, ‘The European and international policy agendas on children, youth and children’s rights’ (Van Vooren and Children’s Rights Knowledge Centre, 2019). This choice met the need to position the study, and related policy selection criteria, within a legitimized framework. In fact, this document provides an inventory of all UN, EU and CoE policy documents with a primary focus on children and young people and their rights between 2010 and 2018.

Although children’s issues have also received attention in other policy areas at the vertical policy level, these documents have been excluded from the inventory and from the present analysis as children are not a primary focus.

The inventory lists policy agendas addressed to youth. These have been excluded from the present analysis. For the UN, ‘youth’ comprises persons between 15 and 24 years old,² while for the EU³ and CoE⁴ ‘youth’ is defined as persons between the ages of 13 and 30 years. Confining the study to policies exclusively focused on children (persons under the age of 18, according to Article 1 of the UNCRC) has facilitated a more in-depth reflection on the meanings of participation by younger children, which is particularly challenging and often neglected (Day et al., 2015; Lansdown, 2005a).

Therefore, with regard to the UN, the analysis addresses ‘A world fit for children’ (2002–2012), that has the aim of promoting a better future for all children. Since its adoption, no other UN policy document exclusively focused on children has been published. The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2015–2030), also addressed by this analysis, is currently the main reference document for policymaking concerning children and their rights, although not exclusively directed to this target.

With regard to the EU, the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union (2008) stated for the first time that the European Union bound itself to promote protection of children’s rights. In fulfilment of this obligation, the European Commission drew up an ‘EU agenda for the rights of the child’ (2011–2014), the object of this analysis, on the themes of promoting child-friendly justice, making the Internet safer for children, protecting children from violence, and addressing the discrimination and social exclusion of children. Although the European Commission has reiterated its ongoing commitment to coordinating and mainstreaming children’s rights initiatives, a clear and comprehensive overarching framework for EU action on the rights of the child was lacking until March 2021 when the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child (2021–24)⁵ was adopted. With regard to the CoE, the Warsaw Declaration of 2005 expressed the commitment of the heads of state and governments of the CoE to eradicate violence against children, while the Warsaw Action Plan listed ‘Building a Europe for children’ as one of its goals. Consequently, the programme ‘Building a Europe for and with children (2006–2011)’ was launched, with two interconnected objectives: promoting children’s rights and protecting children from violence. The third and most recent strategy informing this programme, the CoE Strategy for the Rights of the Child (2016–2021), also known as the Sofia Strategy, object of the present analysis, prioritizes equal opportunities for all children, participation, freedom from violence, child-friendly justice, and children’s rights in the digital environment.

The analysis of the content of the named policy agendas leads to a pedagogical reflection (Bertolini, 2003b) on a specific aspect of the mentioned policies, namely, the duo of terms ‘child participation’, bridging the political share with the pedagogical one.

Let us step back and set the framework. Education and politics are originally and undeniably interdependent: each civilization reproduces itself through education, and education is at the basis of civil coexistence (Bertolini, 2003b; Bruzzone, 2020). Therefore, nearly any policy is educative for those who enact it (Cohen et al., 1993). In other words, policy agendas have the power to shape (Bell and Stevenson, 2006) what a child can (learn) to do and be in a given society (Alessandrini, 2014). It is crucially important to explore the meanings of the ‘child-participation’ duo of terms as they are used in policy documents, because the values and principles thus conveyed constitute the political framework within which micro-pedagogical learning experiences, involving both children and adults, are constructed. The policy agendas analysed in this study, in fact, are underpinned by pedagogical assumptions concerning the socio-cultural construction of childhood as a category (Becchi, 1994) and the spaces of participation that are dedicated and/or conceded to flesh-and-blood children (Biffi, 2018; Macinai, 2013).

Therefore, we next analyse the contents of the policy agendas concerning children put forth by the UN, EU and CoE between 2010 and 2018 with a view to exploring:

How do the UN, EU and CoE policy documents on children(’s rights) describe the ‘child-participation’ duo of constructs?

In relation to the twin themes of children and participation, what are the pedagogical assumptions underpinning the documents?

For each policy agenda on children(’s rights), our analysis examines in turn: (a) how child participation is described; (b) how children themselves are described; and (c) similarities and/or differences with respect to the other agendas under study.

UN policy agendas on children(’s rights)

A world fit for children

In keeping with the renewed focus on childhood in the first decade of the new millennium⁶ and with the UNCRC’s recognition of children as the subjects of rights, the policy document ‘A world fit for children’ (UN General Assembly, 2002) was adopted for the coming decade of 2002–2012 at the first Special Session on Children, held at UN headquarters. The world leaders present committed to creating a world ‘fit for children’, where children’s physical, psychological, spiritual, social, emotional, cognitive and cultural development would be set as national and global priorities. Children were described as resourceful citizens with the potential to contribute to bettering the future of contemporary societies. Child participation is one of the principles that the document calls members of society to uphold. Specifically:

Listen to children and ensure their participation. Children and adolescents are resourceful citizens capable of helping to build a better future for all. We must respect their right to express themselves and to participate in all matters affecting them, in accordance with their age and maturity. (UN General Assembly, 2002: para. 7.4)

In this definition, the UN outlines two steps: the first is listening to children; the second, ensuring that children participate. It appears that listening is seen here as propaedeutic to participating, as is enjoying access to information and services (UN General Assembly, 2002: para. 17).

It is difficult to clearly define what is meant by participation in this context. It could be hypothesized that participating is understood here as making one’s contribution, in terms of the active role that children can play both in their own lives and in building a better future for all. This idea is borne out by the paragraphs devoted to children with disabilities (UN General Assembly, 2002: para. 21) and girls (para. 21). Here adjectives such as ‘active’, ‘fully’ and ‘equally’ are used to describe the forms of participation that the UN envisages for all children. Nevertheless, child participation is circumscribed by the child’s age and maturity. While on the one hand this can protect children from being overexposed, on the other what they can do and be is constrained by those who decide – usually adults – whether they are old and/or mature enough to be allowed to participate.

Since issuing ‘A world fit for children’, the UN has not adopted any further documents with an exclusive focus on children or children’s rights. Hence, no clarification has been forthcoming on the points just raised, meaning that – in educational settings – child participation will primarily be shaped by the philosophies, objectives, and practices adopted on the ground.

Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

In September 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted the Resolution ‘Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ (A/RES/70/1) at the UN Sustainable Summit. This was the outcome of public consultations with government, civil society, the private sector, academics, the UN system and concerned individuals. The 2030 Agenda frames sustainable development as a multidimensional concept with social, economic and environmental dimensions that can be fully achieved only if no one is left behind. There are many synergies between the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and children’s rights: both envisage a transformed world, recognize that rights and development are interdependent, and promote international cooperation (Bhardwaj et al., 2017). Whereas the UNCRC focuses on children, providing a code of rights and guidelines for future development that are specifically tailored to children and their needs, the 2030 agenda takes a broader perspective and addresses the needs of all human beings, with children representing just one segment of humanity. Nevertheless, this document remains the current leading framework for policy on children. It describes childhood itself in the following terms:

We envisage a world of universal respect for human rights and human dignity, the rule of law, justice, equality and non-discrimination; of respect for race, ethnicity and cultural diversity; and of equal opportunity permitting the full realization of human potential and contributing to shared prosperity. A world which invests in its children and in which every child grows up free from violence and exploitation. A world in which every woman and girl enjoys full gender equality and all legal, social and economic barriers to their empowerment have been removed. A just, equitable, tolerant, open and socially inclusive world in which the needs of the most vulnerable are met. (UN General Assembly, 2015: para. 8).

Thus, the 2030 Agenda, although not specifically focused on children, attributes key importance to childhood. The most telling sign of a nation’s progress towards its SDGs is how well it meets the needs of its children. However, while on the one hand childhood is represented as a specific category that allows the world to ‘measure’ its progress towards sustainable development, on the other, children are classified among the vulnerable groups targeted by the 2030 Agenda (Declaration: para. 23; SDGs 4.5, 5.2, 11.2, 11.7). In other words, although there is little danger of losing sight of children in the 2030 Agenda, there is a danger of lumping children together with other vulnerable groups in a way that fails to recognize and respect their specific identity (the same might be said about the other groups); for example, by portraying them as ‘minors’ or ‘infants’ (Declaration: para. 23; SDGs 4.5, 5.2, 11.2, 11.7). Despite this potential hazard, children are viewed as key contributors to the world called for by the document:

We commit to providing inclusive and equitable quality education at all levels – early childhood, primary, secondary, tertiary, technical and vocational training. All people, irrespective of sex, age, race, ethnicity, and persons with disabilities, migrants, indigenous peoples, children and youth, especially those in vulnerable situations, should have access to life-long learning opportunities that help them acquire the knowledge and skills needed to exploit opportunities and to participate fully in society. We will strive to provide children and youth with a nurturing environment for the full realization of their rights and capabilities, helping our countries to reap the demographic dividend including through safe schools and cohesive communities and families. (SDGs Declaration: para. 25)

Importantly, the full participation of children and youth in society is mentioned in the paragraph on education in the Declaration section of the 2030 Agenda. Education is indeed crucial if children and youth are to acquire the knowledge and skills they will need to fully participate in society. However, the 2030 Agenda goes even further than this, also calling for the creation of a nurturing environment for the full realization of children’s and youth’s rights and capabilities.

As previously mentioned, the UNCRC and the 2030 Agenda are closely connected. In this regard, UNICEF (Wernham, 2017) has demonstrated how the SDGs correspond to the rights laid down in the UNCRC. Article 12 of the UNCRC, one of the ‘guiding principles’ of the Convention, applies to all Global Goals but is particularly relevant to the following specific goals:

16.10 Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national and international agreements.

l6.b Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management.

10.6 Ensure enhanced representation and voice for developing countries in decision-making in global international economic and financial institutions in order to deliver more effective, credible, accountable and legitimate institutions.

11.3 By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanisation and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.

13.b Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island developing States, including focusing on women, youth and local marginalised communities.

16.7 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

17.17 Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.

This mapping adopts a deliberately broad interpretation of the Global Goals and of the Convention, challenging us to look for far-reaching and less obvious connections between the two frameworks, thus reinforcing their potential to generate mutual advocacy and implementation. In relation to child participation, it lays the ground for viewing children as having a salient contribution to make on issues that we might not immediately associate with them.

Children and participation in the UN agendas: a vulnerable form of participation?

In response to the post-World War II wave of interest in children as a focus for policy and investment, the UN produced the document ‘A world fit for children’. Here, children were depicted as resourceful citizens and their participation in society as a specific objective to be striven for. Fifteen years later, children were still at the heart of the UN agenda, as subjects whose participation was key to sustainable development. On the other hand, they were now viewed as a vulnerable category compared to adults (though not all adults: those with disabilities, for example, are also seen as vulnerable). The ambiguity with which the category of children is described by the UN makes it difficult to understand what kind of participation is theoretically envisaged for them. Inevitably, therefore, child participation is primarily shaped by what happens in practice and is at risk of remaining tokenistic (Malone and Hartung, 2010). Furthermore, sustainability requires responsibility, and hence the capacity to respond to situations. Can the participation of the so-called ‘vulnerable’, juxtaposed to the ‘non-vulnerable’, be responsible and consequently sustainable? What happens if the term ‘vulnerable’ is substituted with the term ‘interdependent’ (Biffi, 2020)? These aspects, and their pedagogical relevance, will be discussed throughout the paper once more elements, able to clarify these perspectives, are brought out.

EU policy agenda on children(’s rights)

EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child

The European Commission’s (2011) EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child – which promotes the broad interests of the EU by proposing and enforcing legislation and implementing policies and the EU budget – also looks to ensure that the EU upholds the rights of the child outlined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU, 2000), the Treaties and the UNCRC to the highest possible standard. To this end, the EU Agenda specifies 11 concrete actions in 4 areas where the EU can contribute true added value. The areas in question are child-friendly justice, the protection of children when they are vulnerable, children in the EU’s external action, and child participation and awareness raising. Before focusing on child participation, is important to bear in mind how childhood is conceived in this policy agenda. Children are viewed as right-holders to be invested in and not all of them are considered vulnerable: rather, vulnerability is a condition that affects some children in particular areas addressed by the agenda.

Homing in now on participation, the European Commission, in its fourth action area of ‘Child participation and awareness raising’ states that:

Full recognition of the rights of the child means that children must be given a chance to voice their opinions and participate in the making of decisions that affect them. Article 24(1) of the Charter requires the EU to take children’s views into considerations on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity. (European Commission, 2011: 13)

This passage states that children’s rights cannot be fully realized unless children can express their opinions and participate in the decisions that concern their lives. The European Commission proceeds to describe the actions that should be undertaken to enhance child participation:

The Commission will set up, in the course of 2011, a single entry point on EUROPA with information for children on the EU and on the rights of the child. This single entry point will provide easy access to information that can be understood by children of different age groups and can be used by parents and teachers to find information and teaching materials. The Commission will invite other EU institutions to join this initiative. (European Commission, 2011: 14)

With regard to the decisions that affect children, the European Commission recognizes the need to provide more opportunities for children to participate in the development and implementation of actions and policies that impact them, such as education, health, or environmental policies (European Commission, 2011:14). Hence, participation appears to be a transversal objective of the agenda, a strategy that can contribute to upholding the agenda’s more specific aims.

CoE policy agendas on children(’s rights)

CoE Strategy for the Rights of the Child (2016–2021)

In 2005, the Warsaw Action Plan (CoE, 2005), under the heading of the CoE’s third main task of ‘Building a more humane and inclusive Europe’, called for ‘Building a Europe for children’ by implementing a children’s rights perspective across all the CoE’s activities, while ensuring effective coordination of child-related activities within the organization. In response to the Warsaw Declaration and Action Plan, an action programme focused on the social, legal, health and educational aspects of the various forms of violence against children was launched: titled ‘Building a Europe for and with children’, its aims are to promote children’s rights and protect them from violence. The various cycles of this programme have been informed by three strategies, the most recent of which is the CoE Strategy for the Rights of the Child (2016–2021), also known as the Sofia Strategy 2016–2021 (CoE, 2016). This document was developed with the aim of eliminating gaps in the legal protections afforded to children and addressing discrepancies between law and practice. Importantly, the CoE views children not just as passive beneficiaries of the Europe that it is striving to build, but rather as co-constructors of it: hence, its efforts incorporate child participation into its actions. In this endeavour, the work of the CoE is based on the UNCRC and its four principles. Specifically, the participation principle is defined as follows:

4. The right to be heard (Article 12). Children’s participation is one of the five priority areas of the Strategy, but it is also a cross-cutting objective. Involving children in decision-making at individual, family, organization and policy level in society is key to realizing their rights. The Council of Europe is committed to taking a participatory approach to the rights of the child in all dimensions of this Strategy and to support its member States in doing so. (CoE, 2016: 4).

This definition forges a strong connection between child participation, referred to as ‘the right to be heard’ invoked in the UNCRC (Art. 12), and children’s rights more generally. Hence, it is recognized not only as a right in itself, but also as an approach to fulfilling the overall rights of the child. It is also one of the priorities identified in the Strategy. The document is clear about the spheres in which decisions concerning children are made, naming the individual, familial and societal levels. By referring specifically to influencing policy, it unequivocally links participation and politics. It appears that the CoE envisages child participation as spanning all aspects of concern to humanity and not only areas identified as particularly regarding children. This implies that the role of education is to form full-fledged political subjects.

The EU and CoE policy agendas: from children as subjects of rights to children as political subjects

Although the EU and CoE are separate entities fulfilling different – albeit complementary – roles, they share the same fundamental values: human rights, democracy and the rule of law. In relation to children’s rights specifically, the two bodies work together to raise awareness and improve the legal standards that protect and promote the rights of the child in Europe. Considering these shared values and endeavours, let us now examine similarities and differences between the two organizations’ agendas on children, with a specific focus on participation.

Both the European Commission and the CoE emphasize that child participation is a right, and, even more, a specific dimension, a cross-cutting objective contributing to the realization of rights and of the policy agendas. They also define certain aspects of child participation. The European Commission raises the need to share easily accessible and understandable information with children so that they can make informed decisions as a function of their age and maturity; the CoE names the spheres of decision-making concerning the child: the individual level, the family and the policy level in society, displaying an ecological approach to participation in this specific context. With regard to children themselves, the EU is more ‘cautious’ in defining the potential spaces and times in which children can make their contribution, while the CoE views children as the political subjects, hence active agents, of their own rights, who are capable, if appropriately supported, of making decisions that not only pertain to their individual sphere but concern all of society.

We can see that these two agendas on children and their rights – while both framed within the UN policies that concern children all over the world – are complementary to each other and together offer us a more ‘concrete’ grasp of what is meant by ‘child participation’, at least in the member states of the EU and CoE, as discussed in the next section. From a pedagogical perspective, the invitation is to move from merely teaching children about their rights to creating spaces and times in which children can, on one hand, experiment the UNCRC rights, and, on the other hand, as political beings, shape their own rights.

Discussion

In the context of the UN, child participation is viewed as crucial to the development of society and the fulfilment of rights. However, the UN policy statements suggest no concrete measures and actions for fostering the participation of children if we exclude UNICEF’s mapping of the UNCRC onto SDGs. In relation to the pedagogical ideas underpinning the UN documents, the child is undoubtedly viewed as a category to be invested in. On the one hand, children are depicted as resourceful citizens (UN General Assembly, 2002: para. 7.4), but on the other as a vulnerable group (Declaration: para. 23. SDGs 4.5, 5.2, 11.2, 11.7). From a pedagogical perspective, this ambiguity has repercussions for children’s lives. If they are seen as vulnerable, there is a risk that their specific identity as children will fail to be acknowledged, reassigning them to a state of minority or infancy in which they will inevitably be the objects of protection and of adults’ decisions (Macinai, 2013). This is a violation of the UNCRC, which recognizes children as subjects of rights as well as of protection. On the contrary, vulnerability may be thought of as a condition. More specifically, a vulnerable condition originates when, in face of a critical event, activating personal and public resources does not generate renewed existential equilibrium. Hence, vulnerability is not a structural dimension of childhood but rather a condition of human existence (Bertolini, 1958; Mortari, 2016). Further reflection on what vulnerability means in the context of the 2030 Agenda is needed, given that its interpretations are shaping the (sustainability of the) decisions that are being made for children and society globally. From a pedagogical perspective, considering children as vulnerable by definition or susceptible to being in a vulnerable condition, like any other human being, makes a great difference. In fact, the philosophy and objectives established for an educational intervention would be totally different. In the first case, children would be deprived of their specific identity, an extremely violent view; in the second case, the aim of an educational intervention would be to understand under which conditions children are vulnerable and who or what is the potential offender (Biffi, 2020)

Moving on to the EU, in the European Commission’s EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child, child participation is viewed as a specific dimension of children’s fundamental rights and as essential to accessing protection and provision rights. This definition is in line with the UNCRC, which recognizes children as subjects of rights and thus also as subjects of their own protection. Here vulnerability appears to be understood as a condition rather than as a characteristic of childhood. However, child participation is circumscribed by age and maturity, hence potentially toned down.

The CoE draws on Article 12 of the UNCRC to support its statement that children have the right to participate in decisions concerning their own lives, family life and broader society (CoE, 2016a: 4). This is a key point, given that it has been argued that child participation should only be understood as concerning individual and private matters and that it is illegitimate and dangerous to extend the meaning of the Article to public and collective forms of participation (Cantwell, in Percy-Smith and Thomas, 2010: 2). However, the issue can also be approached from another perspective: the fact that a decision does not affect children alone does not mean that it does not affect them at all (Child Rights International Network (CRIN), 2018). This appears to be the assumption behind the CoE’s idea of child participation, which reinforces a notion of politically agentic children who live and act in multiple spheres of existence.

At this point, we need to reflect on responsibility in its etymological sense, and to examine how children, together with adults, may be capable of responding – as full-fledged political subjects – to situations that concern both their own lives and humanity as a whole. Article 12 calls for ‘giving due weight’ to children’s views in light of the principle of the best interest of the child (UNCRC, Article 3). Whether, and how much, consideration is given to children’s opinions depends on who is assessing their maturity and decides to take their views into account: usually adults (White, 1996). While child participation can challenge the dominant (adult) patterns, it can also act as a means of reproducing existing (adult) patterns of power. This last risk can easily become a reality if children are seen as a vulnerable group by definition: in this event, the spaces of participation that are dedicated or conceded to them will typically be highly tokenistic. It is crucial to recognize that participation and non-participation always reflect an interest of some kind, while perceptions of interests and whether or not they can be expressed reflect power relations (White, 1996). In this regard, Article 5 of the UNCRC emphasizes that the direction and guidance provided by caregivers must be ‘in accordance with the child’s evolving capacities’ and support the ‘exercise by the child of his or her rights’. This idea is also reinforced by General Comment No.12 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which frames participation as a dialogic process, in which conflict is possible and may even facilitate transformation (White, 1996). The UN documents do not appear to suggest specific measures designed to uphold this principle; nor do they address its challenging aspects, such as power and conflict. The European documents, on the contrary, list some actions that have been/will be taken to enforce the principles; for instance, the web portal EUROPA (European Commission, 2011:14) where easily accessible information that is understandable to children can be retrieved. Research (Lansdown, 2005b) has shown that even very young children are able to form their own views, though they may not always be able to communicate them verbally: this suggests that from a very young age, children are capable of meaningfully engaging with issues that concern them. Children have broken into the inner circle of policymaking with force over the last 30 years and, far from being passive recipients, are obliging traditional (adult) subjects to question their own stance (Perry-Hazan, 2016). For this reason, it is an adult responsibility, especially of educators and of pedagogical researchers, to support these kinds of initiatives and integrate them into the policy issuing process. Adults are challenged by being required to take part in ‘non-adult’ forms of dialogue, co-construction and responses to the world, where interdependence, which implies also sharing power and responsibility, is crucial to addressing the life situations that one is confronted with, including in the political sphere. This demands a dramatic shift in doing and being at the societal level.

Concluding thoughts

The concept of child participation is complex and multi-layered. It does not have a universally accepted definition; it intersects with strongly debated concepts such as agency, citizenship and best interest. It is influenced by and influences socio-cultural images of childhood, and consequently impacts on the lived experience of children and adults. Furthermore, documents concerning children tend to lack examples of how the values they enshrine might be put into practice, thus contributing to a proliferation of interpretations (Hussey, 2017; Karsten, 2011) with the risk of toning down the subversive aspects of child participation (White, 1996).The consequence of the ambiguity with which childhood and child participation are described is that children do not frequently enough make their own decisions (Day et al., 2015). There appears to be a significant gap between what is declared in principle about child participation and the actual opportunities to participate afforded to children. An even greater discrepancy between theory and practice may be observed when it comes to allowing children to contribute to defining their own best interest. Hence, all too often, children’s views do not carry weight. This is in contrast with Article 12, which – despite its ambiguous terminology – recognizes children’s right to play an active role in identifying and/or in securing their own best interests (Logan, 2008), one could say, maybe hazardously, in shaping their own rights.

This leads us to inquire what children are learning to do and be in our contemporary society. General Comment No.12 by the Committee on the Rights of the Child (2009) suggests the need for a focus on educational outcomes to enhance child participation – more specifically, children must be given the opportunity to learn how their views and those of adults are considered and shape the outcome of decision-making processes. Child participation as an educational concept is only hinted at within the analysed policy documents. The UN’s 2030 Agenda refers to education as crucial to developing the necessary knowledge and skills required to participate fully in society (SDGs Declaration: para. 25); the European Commission recognizes the need to provide more opportunities for children to participate in the development and implementation of actions and policies that affect them, such as in the field of education (European Commission, 2011: 14), but stops short of identifying specific learning philosophies, objectives or strategies.

This lack of dialogue with the pedagogical field is reflected, for example, in the use of bureaucratic language in these policy documents, which address children’s issues in a way that is inaccessible to children themselves, with some exceptions such as the EUROPA portal;⁷ we see this in the ambivalence with which children are discussed (framed as participating citizens yet vulnerable), as well as in the ambiguity with which child participation is defined, especially in relation to challenging issues such as power and conflict. Indeed, the last-mentioned aspects are typically never legitimized within the legal/political sphere, whereas they are seen as key dimensions of educational experience (Freire, 2018; Rossini, 2015).

It would be profitable to build on this work and conduct a comparative analysis with policy agendas addressed to youth, so addressed to older children (besides adults). It would be possible, in this way, to get a full view of the meanings of child (0–18 years of age) participation in policy agendas. Moreover, it would enable an understanding of if and how age acts as a discriminating factor when describing participation, so when shaping what children can learn to do and be.

It would also be desirable for researchers and policymakers to bridge the gap between the political and pedagogical spheres (Bertolini, 2003b; Bruzzone, 2020; Triani, 2020) with the aim of reducing the discrepancy between policy principles and real-life experience in relation to children and child participation and in order to support societies in re-defining their perception of childhood in general, envisioning a sustainable future in which children are full political agents.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Chiara Carla Montà

Notes

Author biography

Chiara Carla Montà is a PhD student in “Education in the Contemporary Society” at the ‘Riccardo Massa’ Department of Human Sciences for Education of the University of Milano-Bicocca. Her research interests concern education for children’s participation in decision-making processes; educational policy and children’s rights from a pedagogical perspective.

References

Alessandrini

(2014) La ‘Pedagogia’ Di Martha Nussbaum. Approccio Alle Capacità e Sfide Educative [Martha Nussbaum’s ‘Pedagogy’. Capability Approach and Educational Challenges]. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

Ariès

(1962) Centuries of Childhood; a Social History of Family Life. New York: Knopf. Available at: https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/999472962502121 (accessed 19 July 2021).

Austin

(2010) Children’s participation in citizenship and governance. In: Percy-Smith

Thomas

(eds) A Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation: Perspectives from Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp.245–253.

Baumgartner

Green-Pedersen

Jones

(2006) Comparative studies of policy agendas. Journal of European Public Policy 13(7): 959–974.

Becchi

(1994) I Bambini Nella Storia [Children in History]. Roma-Bari: Laterza.

Bell

Stevenson

(2006) Education Policy: Process, Themes and Impact. Routledge.

Berelson

(1952) Content Analysis in Communication Research. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Bertolini

(1958) Fenomenologia e Pedagogia [Phenomenology and Pedagogy]. Bologna: Malipiero.

Bertolini

(2003a) Educazione e politica. La gioiosa fatica di pensare [Education and Politics: The Joyful fatigue of Thinking]. In: Erbetta

(ed.) Senso Della Politica e Fatica Di Pensare. Bologna: CLUEB, pp.559–573.

10.

Bertolini

(2003b) Educazione e Politica [Education and Politics]. Milano: Raffaello Cortina Editore.

11.

Bhardwaj

Sambu

Jamieson

(2017) Setting an ambitious agenda for children: The sustainable development goals. Available at: http://www.ci.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/image_tool/images/367/Child_Gauge/South_African_Child_Gauge_2017/Child_Gauge_2017-Setting_an_ambitious_agenda_for_children%20-The_Sustainable_Development_Goals.pdf (accessed 19 July 2021).

12.

Biffi

(2017) Tutelare i minori contro la violenza: dalle strategie alle pratiche [Protecting minors against violence: From strategy to practice]. Education Sciences & Society 1: 47–64.

13.

Biffi

(2018) Cosa può fare ed essere un bambino oggi? Riflessioni pedagogiche sul contributo dell’infanzia nella società contemporanea [What can a child do and be today? Pedagogical reflections on children’s contribution to contemporary society]. Pedagogia Oggi 16(2): 205–225.

14.

Biffi

(2020) Il Rovescio Della Trama Educativa [The reverse of the Educational Texture]. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

15.

Brown

Johnson

(2008) Childrearing and child participation in Jamaican families. International Journal of Early Years Education 16(1): 31–40.

16.

Bruyere

(2010) Child participation and positive youth development. Child Welfare 89(5): 205.

17.

Bruzzone

(2020) Phenomenology, politics, education. Encyclopaideia 24(56): 1–5.

18.

Cambi

(2003) Diritti umani: una svolta politica, una frontiera pedagogica [Human Rights: a political breakthrough, a pedagogical border]. In: Senso Della Politica e Fatica Di Pensare. CLUEB, pp.293–299.

19.

Cohen

McLaughlin

Talbert

(eds) (1993) Teaching for Understanding: Challenges for Policy and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

20.

Committee on the Rights of the Child (2009) General Comment No.12. CRC/C/GC/1(12): 21–38.

21.

Council of Europe (1961) European Social Charter. ETS No.035.

22.

Council of Europe (1996) European Social Charter (revised). ETS No.163. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/163 (accessed 19 July 2021).

23.

Council of Europe (2005) Warsaw Summit. Action Plan. Available at: https://www.coe.int/t/dcr/summit/20050517_plan_action_en.asp (accessed 19 July 2021).

24.

Council of Europe (2016) Council of Europe Strategy for the Rights of the Child (2016–2021). Sofia.

25.

Child Rights International Network (2018) What lies beneath. A CRIN report – 2018 edn. Available at: https://archive.crin.org/sites/default/files/crin_report_2018_edition.pdf (accessed 19 July 2021).

26.

Day

Percy-Smith

Ruxton

, et al. (2015) Evaluation of legislation, policy and practice of child participation in the EU. Luxembourg. Available at: https://op.europa.eu/s/pmDT (accessed 19 July 2021).

27.

European Commission (2011) An EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2011) 60 final. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0060&from=EN (accessed 19 July 2021).

28.

European Court of Human Rights; Council of Europe (1950) European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg cedex.

29.

European Union (2000) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Communities. C364/1. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf (accessed 19 July 2021).

30.

Fitzgerald

Graham

Smith

, et al. (2010) Children’s participation as a struggle over recognition: Exploring the promise of dialogue. In: Percy-Smith

Thomas

(eds) A Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation: Perspectives from Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp.293–305.

31.

Freire

(2018) Pedagogia Degli Oppressi [Pedagogy of the Oppressed]. Torino: Gruppo Abele. 1968.

32.

Hart

(2004) Children’s participation in humanitarian action: Learning from zones of armed conflict. Oxford: University of Oxford. Queen Elizabeth House. Refugee Studies Centre.

33.

Hart

(1992) Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. Innocenti Essays. Florence: UNICEF International Child Development Centre. Available at: https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/childrens_participation.pdf (accessed 19 July 2021).

34.

Holland

O’Neill

(2006) ‘We had to be there to make sure it was what we wanted’: Enabling children’s participation in family decision-making through the family group conference. Childhood 13(1): 91–111.

35.

Howe

Covell

(2007) Empowering Children: Children’s Rights Education as a Pathway to Citizenship. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

36.

Hussey

(2017) International public participation models 1969–2016. Available at: https://www.bangthetable.com/blog/international-public-participation-models-1969-2016/ (accessed 15 March 2019).

37.

Hussey

(2019) International public participation models 1969–2016. Available at: https://www.bangthetable.com/blog/international-public-participation-models-1969-2016/ (accessed 16 March 2019).

38.

Jamieson

(2010) Dikwankwetla – children in action: Children’s participation in the law reform process in South Africa. In: Barry

P-S

Thomas

(eds) A Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation: Perspectives from Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp.95–104.

39.

Jans

(2004) Children as citizens: Towards a contemporary notion of child participation. Childhood 11(1): 27–44.

40.

Karsten

(2011) Participation models: Citizens, youth, online: A chase through the maze. 2nd edn. Available at: https://www.nonformality.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Participation-Models-20110703.pdf (accessed 19 July 2021).

41.

Kay

Tisdall

(2010) Governance and participation. In: Percy-Smith

Thomas

(eds) A Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation: Perspectives from Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp.318–329.

42.

Keller

Bost

Lock

, et al. (2005) Factors associated with participation of children with mental health problems in structured youth development programs. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 13(3): 141–151.

43.

Kingdon

(1995) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd edn. New York: HarperCollins College Publisher.

44.

Krug

Dahlberg

Mercy

, et al. (eds) (2002) World Report on Violence and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization.

45.

Lansdown

(2001) Promoting Children’s Participation in Democratic Decision-Making. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

46.

Lansdown

(2005a) Can you hear me? The right of young children to participate in decisions affecting them. Working Paper 36. The Hague: Bernard van Leer Foundation.

47.

Lansdown

(2005b) The evolving capacities of the child. Papers innins05/18. Florence. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucf/innins/innins05-18.html (accessed 19 July 2021).

48.

Lansdown

(2010) The realisation of children’s participation rights. In: Percy-Smith

Thomas

(eds) A Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation: Perspectives from Pheory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp.11–23.

49.

Logan

(2008) 2008 Janusz Korczak lecture: The child’s best interest: A generally applicable principle. In: Building a Europe for and with children, toward a strategy for 2009–2011. Stockholm, Sweden, 9 September. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/16806da904 (accessed 19 July 2021).

50.

Lundy

(2007) ‘Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal 33(6): 927–942.

51.

McConachie

Colver

Forsyth

, et al. (2006) Participation of disabled children: How should it be characterised and measured? Disability and Rehabilitation 28(18): 1157–1164.

52.

Macinai

(2013) Pedagogia e Diritti Dei Bambini: Uno Sguardo Storico [Pedagogy and Children’s Rights: A historical perspective]. Roma: Carocci.

53.

Malone

Hartung

(2010) Challenges of particiaptory practice with children. In: Percy-Smith

Thomas

(eds) A Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation: Perspectives from Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp.24–38.

54.

Mateos

Vaquero

Balsells

, et al. (2017) ‘They didn’t tell me anything; they just sent me home’: Children’s participation in the return home. Child and Family Social Work 22(2): 871–880.

55.

Mayring

(2004) Qualitative content analysis. In: Flick

von Kardoff

Steinke

(eds) A Companion to Qualitative Research. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp.266–269.

56.

Mortari

(2016) Cultura Della Ricerca e Pedagogia. Prospettive Epistemologiche [Research Culture and Pedagogy. Epistemological Perspectives]. Roma: Carocci.

57.

Perry-Hazan

(2016) Children’s participation in national policymaking: ‘You’re so adorable, adorable, adorable! I’m speechless; so much fun!’ Children and Youth Services Review 67: 105–113.

58.

Pippa

Malatesta

De Michele

, et al. (2021) Education for sustainable development and children’s involvement in public spaces. From universalism to places, from rights to capabilities: Some evidence from a research project on the regeneration of public spaces in Milan. Social Sciences, MDPI AG 10(3): 88. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/socsci10030088

59.

Ray

(2010) The participation of children living in the poorest and most difficult situations. In: Percy-Smith

Thomas

(eds) A Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation: Perspectives from Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp.63–72.

60.

Rossini

(2015) Educazione e Potere: Significati, Rapporti, Riscontri [Education and Power: Meanings, Relations and Comparisons]. Milano: Guerini Scientifica.

61.

Rudduck

Flutter

(2000) Pupil participation and pupil perspective: Carving a new order of experience. Cambridge Journal of Education 30(1): 75–89.

62.

Shier

(2001) Pathways to participation: Openings, opportunities and obligations. Children & Society 15(2): 107–117.

63.

Theis

(2010) Children as active citizens: An agenda for children’s civil rights and civic engagement. In: Percy-Smith

Thomas

(eds) A Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation: Perspectives from Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp.343–355.

64.

Theobald

Danby

Ailwood

(2011) Child participation in the early years: Challenges for education. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 36(3): 19–26.

65.

Triani

(2020) The connection between school and politics: Three fields of study for pedagogy. Encyclopaideia 24(56): 43–49.

66.

Turkie

(2010) More than crumbs from the table: A critique of youth parliaments as models of representation for marginalised young people. In: Percy-Smith

Thomas

(eds) A Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation: Perspectives from Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, pp.262–269.

67.

United Nations General Assembly (2002) A world fit for children. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. UN General Assembly. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/5290a8624.html (accessed 19 July 2021).

68.

United Nations General Assembly (2015) Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. UN General Assembly. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (accessed 19 July 2021).

69.

Van Vooren

and Children’s Rights Knowledge Centre (2019) The European and international policy agendas on children, youth and children’s rights. State of the art – update 2018. Flemish Goverment, Department for Culture, Youth and Media. D/2019/3241/068. Available at: https://pjp-eu.coe.int/documents/42128013/47261806/European_Agenda2018.pdf/fb770367-8f1c-9269-db0e-55551cbd1903 (accessed 19 July 2021).

70.

Wernham

(2017) Mapping the global goals for sustainable development and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. UNICEF. Available at: https://www.unicef.org/media/60231/file (accessed 19 July 2021).

71.

White

(1996) Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice 6(1): 6–15.

72.

White

Choudhury

(2007) The politics of child participation in international development: The dilemma of agency. European Journal of Development Research 19(4): 529–550. .

73.

Wrobel

Ayers-Lopez

Grotevant

, et al. (1996) Openness in adoption and the level of child participation. Child Development 67(5): 2358–2374.