SECTION II :
THE CREATION OF STANDARDS AGAINST « WORSE FORMS OF WORK
CHILDREN »
Adopted in 1999, Convention n°182 on the worst shapes of
work children, intervenes after the adoption of other more complete and more
general international standards. One can thus wonder about the interest of this
new convention
(Paragraph I), before seeing its contribution with the
already existing legal system precisely (Paragraph II).
Paragraphe I :
Why a new more
restricted convention ?
The already existing international standards, such as
conventions on the forced labor or the minimum age, as well as the
International Convention relating to the rights of the child, could not prevent
the energization of million children since their entries into force. Indeed,
these conventions are not concretely applicable because of the causes which we
have just stated, because they do not take really those in consideration. For
essential that they are, the laws did not succeed in eliminating work from the
children. Everywhere in the world, not only prohibitions are violated, but even
the laws which have as an ambition only to regulate certain work, without
prohibiting them, are not respected. The elimination of the child work thus
passes it by a prohibition in block, or a more pragmatic approach ? The
international community, seems to have chosen the second possibility, while
deciding to attack itself, to start, with « worse forms of the child
work ». With this intention, it adopted a new standard, having a
field of application less broad than conventions than we saw previously. The
goal is quite simply to begin with éradiquer the most intolerable shapes
of work children, and then only when all the conditions to do it are met, to
eliminate most completely possible work from the children, i.e. in its forms
« tolerable ».
It was thus necessary, for even enacting a convention aiming
at éradiquer the most intolerable shapes of work children, to agree on
this concept of intolerable forms. An essential debate was born then : how
to define the border enters
« intolerable » and it
« tolerable » ? This debate saw to be opposed on a
side, the abolitionists of the child work, in particular the trade unions of
the international Confederation of the free trade unions, which affirm that the
place of the child is at the school and not with work, whatever the work, and
other side the not-abolitionists, primarily made up of nongovernmental
Organizations acting on the ground and who wanted to be realistic, while
considering it impossible to propose a short-term alternative to all the
hard-working children of the world. One thus found on this occasion, the debate
which existed in France at the end of the XIXème century between the
need for removing or to frame the poor child work. However, at that time, the
vision abolitionist ended up triumphing, thanks to the schooling of all the
children and to a protection of poorest. However, today, the debate is
inevitable for the developing countries because it is indeed difficult to
remove day at the following day the child work if the primary education
requirements for those are not met, or if essential infrastructures miss, such
as schools. But that should not however prevent from developing a long-term
vision : on this question, the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists
meet at least on the diagnosis, namely that to put an end to the activity of
the children, it will not be enough to a regulation of the work, but which it
will be necessary to begin of true reforms to eliminate absolute poverty.
Nevertheless, one can wonder it is not a question oneself
there of a renunciation of the international community, which in front of the
extent of the child work, lowers to some extent the arms, and is satisfied to
attack with most serious and thus more shocking for the public opinion. Indeed,
it is not easily conceivable that one deliberately leaves children to work,
whereas one saves some of them others, under pretext which them work would be
more tolerable. However, it is not in these terms that it is necessary to
consider the report of the children : it is obvious that all the
hard-working children must be torn off with their work to reach an education of
quality, but unfortunately, in the current state of the development of certain
countries, this objective is inaccessible. Consequently, and that seems me to
be the best possible approach, the international community and in particular
the International Labor Organization decided to make to some extent
« with the means of the edge » and to initially attack the
most serious attacks towards the children. Once this achieved objective, and
these saved children of the exploitation, the international community will have
to bring all help necessary to the developing countries, so that those can
propose solid alternatives to the children and the poor relations, in order to
prevent those from having to resort to the work of their children.
In his report/ratio on the situation of the children in the
world in 1997, the UNICEF held already this speech : the UNICEF wanted to
fight the myth according to which the child work would never be eliminated as
much as poverty would remain. For this organization, even if it is trying to
conclude that the child work and poverty are inseparable, and that the calls in
favor of the immediate elimination of the most dangerous forms of the child
work are utopian, it should not especially be forgotten that the exploitation
of these children profits with the employers for whom it is an additional
source of profit. This is why, the employment of the children to dangerous work
could and was to be eliminated independently from vaster measurements aiming at
limiting poverty. In any event, so today the international community wants to
be credible in its speech, it cannot require these countries which they
implement indeed, laws prohibiting the child work. Indeed, the situation
generated by this requirement would be then worse than the current
situation : the families cannot often do without the income generated by
the work of their children, therefore the children will continue to work but
even more clandestinely still than today and thus under conditions even more
precarious, and will be even with difficulty protégeables because
inaccessible.
Moreover, one cannot force these poor populations not to make
work their children because they do not have any other alternative for
them : these children do not have access to the school, either because it
is too expensive, or quite simply because there is not school near their
dwelling. Consequently, not only these children will not be educated, but in
more they will not be formed to work the ground which they will have to
cultivate later, and the girls will not be able to hold the hearth, as they
will have to make it when they will be married. Moreover, experiments were
already made, of pure and simple closing-down of factories employing of the
children illegally, and the results were more than disappointing : the
children who worked in these factories obviously ceased working there, but
having been thrown to the street without reclassification, they found paid all
another employment even harder and less better. It is thus completely useless,
to want to apply the International Conventions strictly, under penalty of
seeing the situation of these children becoming even more difficult, despite
everything the good intentions of which proof these conventions make.
It
thus appears preferable today to attack the most serious shapes of work
children in priority, and to in parallel set up in these developing countries,
of the structures able to accommodate and train these children.
However, one can also wonder about the need for adopting a new
convention, whereas the International Conventions into force as regards
prohibition of work children, are not applied by the countries signatories.
Indeed, convention n° 138 that we studied previously is the international
standard with regard to the child work, but it is ratified little by the
developing countries, and especially it is not applied. Therefore, why, to
enact a new international standard, whereas it would be enough to make apply
that already existing ? The reason is however simple : the ultimate
goal of convention n° 138 is the complete abolition of the child work, but
it is largely allowed today that this process will take time and that the
children working under extreme conditions cannot wait, until the problems of
long-term development are solved. This need encouraged the adoption of new
standards concerning the worst shapes of work children, in order to ensure that
these forms are the priority of any national and international action.
Moreover, one mobilization in favor of new standards will in addition make
it possible to maintain the dash necessary to the action. The fact of
concentrating on the worst shapes of work children has as favors additional
than the policies designed to treat the question of the most stripped children,
are likely to benefit the other children who work, and who the attention paid
to the examples more feeling reluctant under the social angle can contribute to
maintain engagement and the social consensus necessary to the total abolition
of the child work. At the same time, convention n°138 remains the base of
any national and international action in favor of the complete abolition of the
child work, and the recommendation n° 146 which accompanies it, provides
the complete hot lines for the elimination of this work and for the adoption of
national policies which meet the needs for the children and their families.
|
|
