Abstract
Background 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.
Methodology 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.
Results Implementing the 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. Notably, the 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 the 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.
Conclusions 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.
What is already known on this topic
Published literature focuses on reasons for or against US ratification of the CRC, rather than reasons why America has not ratified.
What this study adds
Application of the health policy triangle and veto player theory to answer why the US has not ratified the CRC.
A new policy analysis framework approach – the veto fulcrum – to understand the correlation between actors and processes in the non-ratification of policy.
Using a veto fulcrum framework highlights the ascendancy of single actors in policy decisions by examining how, by whom, and why these single actors make decisions and/or might be influenced.
An outline on how the veto fulcrum framework can be applied to understand other policy decisions.
How this study might affect research, practice, or policy
Using the policy framework of a veto fulcrum can identify and examine barriers to ratification or enactment of a health or other good governance policy.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for profit sectors.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This research has received ethical approval from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) MSc Research Ethics committee ID#28417 and qualifies for exemption under Research Involving Human Subjects Eligible for Exemption Under 45 CFR 46.104(d), Chart 4 from the US Department of Health and Human Services Human Subject Regulations. Documentation from both institutions is available. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study either as signed consent, or verbally at the beginning of the recorded interview before taking part, and all participants consented for their names, professions, and quoted material to be published.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
