Article 12 of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) requires that states afford children the opportunity, subject to certain qualifications, to express their views on all matters that affect them. Alongside the substantive, procedural and normative significance of this right, Article 12 both reflects and contributes to progressive understandings of childhood more generally; it recognizes children as agentic beings ‘with integrity and personality and the ability to participate freely in society and articulate a view’. Nevertheless, the fulfilment of this legal right is often not realized, requiring ongoing efforts to help translate it into practice. This article examines how the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CommCRC), through recommendations to state parties issued as part of its monitoring function, can assist, or hinder the realization of Article 12. The primary argument advanced is that when issuing recommendations, the CommCRC ought to draw on the Lundy Model of Child Participation as an organizing concept- one utilized to weave together the substance of their recommendations in ways more instructive, useful, and impactful than the current approach.

This socio-legal narrative investigates the journey from “biological” to “societal” filiation undertaken by Islamic and international law regimes in their endeavors to ensure a child's right to name and identity. Combining a discussion of filiation—a status-assigning process—with adoption and kafāla (fostering) as status-transferring mechanisms, it highlights a nuanced hierarchy relating to these processes within Muslim communities and Muslim state practices. It questions whether evolving conceptions of a child's rights to name and identity represent a paradigm shift from “no status” if born out of wedlock toward “full status” offered through national and international law and Muslim state and community practices. The article challenges the dominant (formal, legal) position within the Islamic legal traditions that nasab (filiation) is obtainable through marriage alone. Highlighting inherent plurality within the Islamic legal traditions, it demonstrates how Muslim state practice and actual practices of Muslim communities on the subject are neither uniform nor necessarily in accordance with stated doctrinal positions of the juristic schools to which they subscribe. Simultaneously, the paper challenges some exaggerated gaps between “Islamic” and “Western” conceptions of children's rights, arguing that child-centric resources in Islamic law tend to be suppressed by a “universalist” Western human-rights discourse. Tracing common threads through discourses within both legal traditions aimed at ensuring children a name and identity, it demonstrates that the rights values in the United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child resonate with preexisting values within the Islamic legal traditions.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the best interests principle codified in Article 3 in particular, is playing an increasingly significant role in decisions involving the admission or removal of a child from a host State. This article examines the extent to which the best interest principle may provide an independent source of international protection. That protection may, for instance, proscribe the removal of a child from a host State notwithstanding that the child is ineligible for protection as a refugee or protection under the more traditional non-refoulement obligations in international human rights law.

Children are both the direct and indirect targets during wars. They are directly affected by violence aimed at them and their families; they are indirectly affected by the distress caused to their families; they may be internally displaced or find themselves crossing borders as asylum seekers. Their experiences during and immediately after war militate against their developing in a safe, secure, and predictable environment. Their human rights are compromised and their mental health put at risk.

Whether in the country at and after war, or in the country that offers refuge, children's mental health needs have to be properly assessed and met. In many cases, children may only require a sense of safety and support via their family and school. In other cases, they require more complicated psychosocial interventions that address the various stress reactions they manifest.

This paper addresses these issues against the context of a major community-based programme in Mostar in Bosnia during the recent civil war there. It argues that we have reasonably good screening measures to identify children at high risk of developing mental health problems. It presents an hierarchical model of support and intervention whereby psychosocial help is delivered primarily through schools with only a small proportion of more complex needs being met by specially trained mental health professionals. There is a strong need to evaluate various methods of delivering help and to develop new ways of reaching needy children in a nonstigmatising way.