The adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989 meant the international recognition of children as autonomous right-holders. The Convention includes practically all traditional human rights: civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, to which every child is entitled. The Report on the Protection of Children’s Rights: International Standards and Domestic Constitutions adopted by the Venice Commission in 2014 shows that national constitutions of some Council of Europe Member States have implemented the provisions of the Convention in different manner after its adoption. Some constitutions (the Russian Constitution is among them, too) reflect the traditional paternalistic approach (according to which children need protection) but not the rights-based approach. The inclusion in the Constitution of guarantees of rights for everyone may be insufficient to ensure respect for these rights for every child. The recommendations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Venice Commission to include in national constitutions the key message that children are holders of human rights and the general principals of the Convention are topical for the Russian Federation.
International standards of children’s rights protection, constitutional level of children’s rights protection, domestic violence.
1. Recognising Children’s Rights in the Constitution: The Thirty-First Amendment to the Constitution (Children). October 2012. Children’s Rights Alliance. URL: http://www.childrensrights.ie/sites/default/files/submissions_reports/files/Children’s%20Rights%20Alliance%20Recognising%20Children’s%20Rights%20in%20the%20Constitution%20October%202012.pdf.
2. Report on the Protection of Children’s Rights: International Standards and Domestic Constitutions adopted by the Venice Commission at its 98th Plenary S ession ( Venice, 21—22 M arch 2 014) o n t he B asis of C omments by: Ch. G rabenwarter, J. Helgesen, A. Peters, H. Thorgeirsdottir, A. Lindboe, U. Kilkelly, C. O’Mahony. URL: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2014)005-e.
3. Reviews and Criticisms. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (May 1917 to March 1918). 1918. Vol. 8. Iss. 5. URL: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1573&context=jclc.
4. Table on Constitutional Provisions on Children’s Rights Prepared by C. O’Mahonyyu URL: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-REF(2014)009-e.
5. Wrbka St. Japan’s Civil Code Reform Plan — Seen from a Western Perspective. Kyushu University Legal Research Bulletin. 2014. Vol. 4. URL: http://www.law.kyushu-u.ac.jp/programsinenglish/kulrb/stefan2.pdf.
6. Kurbanov R. A., Shvedkova O. V., Belyalova A. M. Kratkaya informatsiya o 98-y plenarnoy sessii Evropeyskoy komissii za demokratiyu cherez pravo (Venetsianskoy komissii): kratkiy obzor. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. 2014. № 5.
7. Masevich M. G., Kuznetsova I. M., Marysheva N. I. Novyy Semeynyy kodeks RF (kratkiy kommentariy). Semeynyy kodeks Rossiyskoy Federatsii (kratkiy kommentariy). M., 1996.
8. Standarty Soveta Evropy v oblasti prav cheloveka primenitel´no k polozheniyam Konstitutsii Rossiyskoy Federatsii: Izbrannye prava. M., 2002.
9. Entin L. M. Lissabonskiy dogovor i reforma Evropeyskogo Soyuza. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. 2010. № 3.
