National courts have a central role to play in the implementation of children’s rights. In this article, decisions of the Norwegian Supreme court in criminal cases and immigration cases are discussed. They shed interesting light on issues under article 3, such as whether the courts should base their judgment on the present facts, the balancing of the child’s best interests against other considerations, and whether article 3 is self-executing and justiciable. The consequences of a child not being heard are considered. Criminal and immigration cases both contain strong societal interests, but the willingness to give priority to children’s rights seems to differ in the two areas.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kirsten Sandberg (2014) studied this question.