The grounds why the reservation on Article 6 of CRC is legal

One can argue that reservation on article 6 of CRC is contradictory to the object and purpose of
CRC, thus making it an illegal reservation under article 19 of VCLT. However, there are two
legal grounds why the reservation of article 6 of CRC is allowed. First, based on the
supplementary interpretation of Article 6 of CRC. Since article 6 of CRC is closely related to the
legalization of abortion, a closer view to the history of CRC is needed. According to international
law, specifically Article 32 of the 1969 VCLT, a supplementary means to interpret a treaty may
be conducted by taking into account the preparatory work and negotiations related to the treaty
text, if the meaning is either ambiguous or leads to a result which is manifestly absurd.
In this case, during negotiations on the treaty text, the issue of abortion and where life begins
was debated among UN member states. 1 Consequently, in the interest of compromise and
maximum number of ratifications, CRC drafters agreed to not address the issue in the main
articles of the Convention. This means that the text was purposefully made vague so that the
ratifying countries could interpret the provisions to align with their own domestic law and
policies on abortions.2 The Chinese case of reserving article 6 of CRC is the perfect example.
The definition of a child as every human being below the age of eighteen years intentionally
does not set a lower age limit, leaving the States Parties to determine where life begins. This
intentional ambiguity allows countries to apply their own interpretations to other provisions that
address childrens rights, particularly Article 6, which recognizes that every child has the
inherent right to life, and states that States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible
the survival and development of the child. France, Luxembourg, and Tunisia also declared
reservations to this article, making it impossible to interfere with their national legislations and
policies regarding abortion.
1 For the history of CRC negotiations, see (1) ) Sharon Detrick, ed., The United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Guide to the Travaux
Preparatoires; Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, London, 1992; (2) Sharon Detrick, A
Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, 1999, pp. 133-136.
2 Philip Alston, The Unborn Child and Abortion Under the Draft Convention on the Rights of
the Child, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 12, 1990, p. 163.

Second, the preamble of CRC raised question concerning its position on abortion. 3 It does
mention the needs of the child before birth, stating the child needs special safeguards and
care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth. However, this can
imply that CRC does protect the rights of the unborn which could require States Parties to
illegalize abortion.4 But even if the preamble is not the operational paragraph of the Convention,
some legal scholars emphasize that under international law the preamble to a treaty could be
relevant to its interpretation.5 But this has been clarified by the legislative history of CRC. The
drafters did not intend for the preamble sentence to protect the rights of children before birth.
Rather, as a compromise during negotiations on article 1 that sought to define a child6 CRC
drafters were concerned that it could be interpreted as protecting the rights of the unborn, and
in the official record of the negotiation included a statement clarifying that the preamble
paragraph did not intend to prejudice States Parties interpretation of Article 1 on the definition
of a child or any other CRC provisions.7

3 For discussion of the role of preamble in the abortion debate, see The Unborn
Child and Abortion Under the Draft Convention on the Rights of the Child, Human
Rights Quarterly, Vol. 12, 1990, pp. 165-172
4 William L. Saunders, The Convention on the Rights of the Child and the U.N.
Special Session on Children, Family Research Council, 2001.
5 Article 31(2) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states, The
context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise.... its
preamble and annexes ...
6 Cynthia Price Cohen, A Guide to Linguistic Interpretation of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child in Childrens Rights in America: U.N. Convention on the Rights
of the Child Compared with United States Law, Cynthia Price Cohen and Howard A.
Davidson, ed., American Bar Association, 1990, p. 42.
7 See U.N. document, E/CN.4/1989/48, March 2, 1989, paragraph 43. The record
states, In adopting this preambular paragraph, the Working Group does not intend
to prejudice the interpretation of Article 1 or any other provision of the Convention
by States Parties.

Bibliography
1. Sharon Detrick, ed., The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Guide
to the Travaux Preparatoires; Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, London, 1992
2. Sharon Detrick, A Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, 1999, pp. 133-136.
3. Philip Alston, The Unborn Child and Abortion Under the Draft Convention on the
Rights of the Child, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 12, 1990, p. 163.
4. The Unborn Child and Abortion Under the Draft Convention on the Rights of the Child,
Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 12, 1990, pp. 165-172
5. William L. Saunders, The Convention on the Rights of the Child and the U.N. Special
Session on Children, Family Research Council, 2001.
6. Cynthia Price Cohen, A Guide to Linguistic Interpretation of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child in Childrens Rights in America: U.N. Convention on the Rights of
the Child Compared with United States Law, Cynthia Price Cohen and Howard A.
Davidson, ed., American Bar Association, 1990, p. 42.
7. See U.N. document, E/CN.4/1989/48, March 2, 1989, paragraph 43