The Impact of the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child on Environmental Justice: A Comparative Policy Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children are the most vulnerable to environmental harms due to their developing stages, heightened health risks, and dependence on adults, despite contributing the least to environmental damage. While children are increasingly in environmental justice frameworks, their rights remain underrepresented in environmental governance. This study explores the potential of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and General Comment No. 26 (GC26) to advance child-centered environmental protections. Through a comparative analysis of Canada, New Zealand, and the U.S., this study examines how countries have (or fail to) incorporate the UNCRC and GC26 into legal systems, national legislation, and children’s participation in national environmental governance. This study finds that even ratifying nations have underutilized the UNCRC and guidance from GC26, highlighting the limited enforceability of the UNCRC and the need for stronger national incorporation. This study contributes to global environmental justice discourse by exploring how children’s rights can advance intergenerational equity and offers recommendations for future research and policy development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".