Open Access Research Article
CHILD RIGHTS IN DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT: THE CONUNDRUM OF BALANCING PROTECTION AND PARTICIPATION By: Anjali Dixit
Published Paper
Article Details
CHILD
RIGHTS IN DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT: THE CONUNDRUM OF BALANCING PROTECTION AND
PARTICIPATION
Authored By: Anjali Dixit[1]
Institution: Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya
National Law University, Lucknow
Contact No.9910170061,8318613088,
Abstract
Law-making and enforcement
authorities around the globe are grappling with the challenge of interconnected
digital services, technologies, and products as well as constantly evolving
techniques that can harm children. However, reactive policymaking to arrive at
quick-fix solutions could unreasonably constrain children’s access and deprive
them of the opportunities and benefits that the digital environment offers. The
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child,1989 (Hereinafter UNCRC),
largely considered to be the foundation of children’s rights divides the rights
of children into three broad categories of protection, participation, and
promotion (3 P’s). State parties to the convention are under an obligation to
fulfill children’s rights in the digital environment. This article explains how
overly protectionist legislation can be antithetical to children’s
participation in the digital environment. It further advocates that a balanced
approach is the need of the hour.
Keywords:
Digital Environment, Child Rights, UNCRC, Participation, Protection
INTRODUCTION
The advent of the internet followed
by a speedy development in information and communication technologies resulted
in the creation of a digital environment. The term digital environment
encompasses much more than just the Internet as it refers to an array of
digitally networked and computing technologies, including but not limited to
the Internet, smartphones and networks, online applications, social media
platforms, online gaming, big data, the internet of things, etc.[2]
The digital environment is constantly restructuring children’s lives providing
them with newer avenues to interact, learn, grow, and participate. It continues
to grow at the behest of global commercial interest, innovative efforts,
institutional policies, and practices at both national and international levels
and to serve the evolving needs of the end user.
With the growing interaction of
children with digital technologies both at the individual and institutional
level, the line between offline and online is blurring. This has become a cause
of concern for organizations engaging in child rights issues. The expanding ICT
access of children around the world is a double-edged sword, as it provides
them opportunities for participation, health, communication, education, and
entertainment while risking their safety, mental well-being, and privacy.[3]
Therefore, while digital technologies do play a crucial role in a child’s
development by building up capacities and strengthening abilities, their
current and potential ill effects on the well-being of children, call for
policy interventions.[4]
The UN Convention on the Rights of
Child (UNCRC), ratified in 1989, is largely considered the fountainhead of the
human rights of children in the world. All member states of the United Nations
are parties under the convention except the United States of America. The
Convention provides for the minimum basic standards, entitlements, and freedoms
to be made available to all children free of any discrimination. ‘Child’ under
the convention is defined as a person up to the age of 18 years.[5]
The UN CRC plays a complementary role
to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[6],
marking the significance of children in terms of human rights and states that “the
child because of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards
and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after
birth”. There is a consensus among nation-states on the three fundamental
principles of UN CRC namely: “provision of basic needs, protection against
neglect and abuse, and children’s participation in their families and
communities”[7].
In its General Comment No.25[8]
the United Nations Child Rights Committee, in a historic step, extended the
implementation of UNCRC to the digital environment and guided state parties on
formulating policies, framing laws, and other such relevant measures for the
purpose. Therefore, state parties signatories to the convention must fulfill
children’s provision, participation, and protection rights in the digital
spaces as well.
Provision rights entail the
production of beneficial content for the social and cultural development of
children; age-appropriate options to exercise their right to leisure and
recreation; resources for online education and information, as well as required
digital literacy and awareness of online threats. Participation rights include
children’s rights to ‘freedom of expression, ‘freedom of association’, ‘freedom
of thought, conscience, and religion’, and ‘freedom of peaceful assembly.
Whereas protection rights provide for a child’s right to be protected from
‘sexual abuse and sexual exploitation, ‘trafficking’, all forms of ‘abuse and
neglect, and ‘all other forms of exploitation prejudicial to any aspects of the
child’s welfare.[9]
The majority of the laws, policies,
and regulations, both at national and international levels are passionately
inclined towards protecting children online. Current measures under the UNCRC
also offer models to categorize illegal content and all other harmful activity
against children in member states or transpose the frameworks under the
convention into national laws.[10]
This inclination towards protection rights overshadows the significance of the
provision and participation rights of children in digital spaces.
This article studies the growing
interaction of children with digital technologies and the opportunities and
risks they encounter in digital spaces. It demonstrates that the current law
and policy approach considers children as hapless victims of cyber -crimes and
is disproportionately inclined towards their protection in digital spaces. It
argues that a balanced approach that provides due consideration to children’s
provision and participation rights in digital spaces without compromising their
protection is the need of the hour.
THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK: DISTINCTION BETWEEN RISK AND HARM
There is an evidence-led theory that
explains that risk and harm are distinct. Not everyone is harmed when they
encounter risk and risk merely points to a probability of harm. Factors that
explain harm are not the same as those accounting for risk encounters.[11]
Therefore, the complete elimination of risks is not a feasible plan. As Sonia
Livingstone[12] puts it
“Society does not wish to keep children forever in a ‘walled garden’,
recognizing that they must explore, make mistakes and learn to cope in order to
develop into resilient adults and responsible digital citizens”.[13]
Evidence demonstrates that there is a positive correlation between risks and
opportunities. With greater emphasis on protection, there is a higher risk of
denying or suppressing participation, similarly enabling provision and
participation increases the need for protection in equal measure.[14]
A UNICEF report[15]
reveals that many children can comfortably avoid risks while surfing the net
and they view themselves as an agent to bring change as well as act as acting
as protectors of young children online. The report recognizes this ability of
children to express their opinions on the mitigation of risks and suggests that
children’s opinions should be given careful attention and incorporated into
schemes that empower them to safely use the internet. However, the report
cautions against overestimating children’s ability to protect their interests.
The ultimate responsibility rests with adults to ensure safe and equitable
access to the internet for children. A UNESCO report on digital citizenship in
Asia-Pacific also points to providing a safe online environment to children by
empowering them and minimizing risks through top-down policies.[16]
Interestingly, there is no evidence
backing the claim that rising internet use in societies leads to increased
occurrence of harm in childhood. On the contrary, the past decades have
witnessed an overall decrease.[17]
Therefore researchers continue to comprehend the nature of risks and harm in
digital spaces. As longitudinal studies to study benefits and harm are lacking,
there are no established baseline measures and recorded index changes. Results
from studies conducted by international child protection NGOs in Asia, Africa,
and Latin America reveal that the internet provides avenues for self-expression
and socialization in addition to facilitating learning and entertainment.[18]
The same studies also report harms experienced by children that range from
coming across disturbing pornographic and violent content online to dangerous
offline encounters with people they met online.[19]
European research reveals a positive
correlation between risks and opportunities available online. [20]In
the offline context, this can be understood concerning opportunities that
expose children to risks such as climbing trees and crossing roads. Societies
usually manage such risks through parenting, education as well and some
regulation. Cultural differences also mark variations in this approach. For instance,
countries in the global north consider exposure to some amount of risk helps in
developing the abilities of a child whereas in the global south, it is not the
same as safety mechanism are often absent. However, the idea of protecting
children by restricting their access to the internet is slowly gaining momentum
in the global north as well. Moreover, evidence supporting claims for
protecting children online by restricting access is likely to undermine
children’s privacy and participation rights in countries that adopt a
disciplinarian approach towards child-rearing.[21]
Restrictive management practices tend to limit children’s opportunities to
explore, learn, participate, and become empowered entities in digital spaces.[22]
Therefore, the relationship between risk and harm needs to be reassessed in the
digital age including the factors that link opportunities to benefits, rather
than vulnerabilities.[23]
RISK, OPPORTUNITIES, AND RISKY OPPORTUNITIES
Risks in
the digital environment can be categorized as “content, contact, and conduct
risks”. As digital spaces are largely blind to age, children are free to
access content inappropriate for their age and maturity. Inappropriate content
can have long-term adverse effects on the developing minds of young children
and can shape their conduct both in the digital and physical world. [24]For instance, there is evidence supporting the fact that viewing
pornography adversely impacts children. [25]Adult content objectifying women as sex objects leads them to develop
distorted notions about sex and derogatory opinions about women in general. [26]Additionally, content promoting alcohol or drug consumption is equally
harmful to children as they are in a stage of life where addictions usually
begin.[27] Contact risks comprise harms arising from unpleasant contact online that
may lead to harassment, emotional distress, bullying, etc. Child sexual abuse,
Child trafficking, child pornography, grooming, and cyberbullying are some of
the specific threats that children face in the digital environment. Further,
conduct risks comprise of publication of unpleasant content, such as
distasteful comments on social media, sharing adult content, violating online
privacy, etc. There may be instances where conduct risks in the digital world
transcend to the physical offline world and lead to more serious offenses.
Although users of all ages face risk online, children due to their young and
impressionable age become easy targets for predators in digital spaces.
Children do face a multitude of risks
online and safety mechanisms that help them deal with the risk will go a long
way in fulfilling their right to be protected. However, it is undeniable that
the digital environment offers children a host of opportunities to participate
and make themselves heard. Research conducted by Amanda et al.[28]
revealed that despite uneven access to the internet around the world, the
purpose of its use by children was similar. Children generally use digital
media for education, accessing information, entertainment, creative expression,
connecting to people, etc. Children reported that although the risks of abuse
on digital media are a cause of concern for them, they recognize digital media
as largely playing a positive role in their lives. As children remain connected
to the digital world, they feel aware and empowered and in a better position to
exercise their rights to education, speech, expression, etc. The use of digital
media helps them to foster relations and contribute better to society which
goes on to provide a sense of well-being.
Another report on the use of digital
technologies by children around the world brings forth that, children find it
easy to access required information online; learn new skills; acquire knowledge
about their origin, traditions, and culture; share their problems; express
opinions, and also provide suggestions to problems concerning them. Also, the
digital space offers them an opportunity to participate and make their voice
heard on matters concerning their well-being. As the digital environment
affords newfound platforms for creative expression, some use it to show their
hidden talent as they are too shy or hesitant to do the same in offline spaces.
Whereas, some others are also using their talent to voice the concerns of their
community. For instance, a 17-year-old boy from Lebanon shares his use of
digital technology in the following words- “Through rap (sharing YouTube
videos), I express the needs of the community and the suffering of the citizens
and weaknesses of politics, and [uncertain] security situation, and the youth’s
future and feelings”[29].
THE DOWNSIDE OF AN OVERLY PROTECTIONIST APPROACH
Initiatives implementing provision
and participation measures under the UNCRC are often put aside by the
protection agenda[30].
Even research is inclined towards the risk factor in digital spaces and has its
share of challenges. Firstly, there is a wide array of risks that demand
consideration, including but not limited to, child trafficking, online
grooming, ethical, racial, and religious hate, adult content, cyberbullying,
sexual abuse, misinformation, etc. Secondly, there remains confusion as
to what should be classified as harmful on the internet. Thirdly, it is
difficult to draw a clear line between risks and opportunities as too often
teenagers explore and learn through avenues that could be termed as “risky
opportunities”.[31]
Exposure to risks and harm to
children in digital spaces occupies center stage in public discourses.[32]
Such an approach promotes a protectionist policy that inhibits a child’s access
to the internet and opportunities linked to it. Protectionist approaches
further establish parental hegemony in policies as well as in cyber safety
legislation. Also, as this parochial narrative fails to recognize children’s
rights, violation of a child’s right to privacy and data protection rights is
not accounted for.[33]
The impact of the protectionist
approach is twofold. Firstly, digital discourses are largely defined by adults,
excluding the perspectives of children and there is apprehension regarding the
digital capabilities of children in the Internet age. Secondly, these
frameworks view children as passive entities lacking the ability to deal with
risks in the digital environment, thereby undermining their agency to
meaningfully contribute to digital spaces.[34]
The following examples from Japan and Australia respectively, bring forth
certain disadvantages that arise when protectionist measures are undertaken or
proposed by States without assessing their impact on children’s participation
rights.
With an aim to provide a safe
internet environment for children, content filtering and blocking mechanisms
have increasingly become a common practice in the global south. But it has its
share of disadvantages. Japan, for instance, passed a law in 2008[35] that
requires a range of internet-related businesses to filter content that can be
harmful to children. These businesses include software developers,
manufacturers of equipment used to access the internet, internet and mobile
service providers, etc. The policy of filtering and blocking content often
follows a blanket approach risking possibilities for adolescents to explore
digital spaces for individual growth. Adoption of such mechanisms is
susceptible to both over-blocking and under-blocking. Under blocking suffers
from the defect of failing to block all identified content. Also, over-blocking
results from often blocking content not intended to be censored.[36]
Australia presents an example
of how legislation with protectionist overtones can be antithetical to
children’s interests. The Enhancing Online Safety for Children Act 2015[37]
sets up the office of the Children e- Safety Commissioner with wide-ranging
enforcement powers about social media sites with harmful content and the
end-user posting such content. The Act provides a mechanism for the quick
removal of harmful cyberbullying content from social media sites. It also
provides a scheme for the receipt and investigation of complaints regarding
harmful content. [38]The
act has faced backlash from several stakeholders criticizing it for
criminalizing adolescents and being detrimental to the right to free speech and
expression. Creating awareness through educational programs involving schools,
guardians, and parents is viewed as a more effective option by some to tackle
cyberbullying.[39]
The liberating effect digital
technologies have had on young people’s personal expression and development
emphasizes the dangers of imposing statutory limitations and censors in digital
spaces that children use for development. Young people have highly fluid
conversations which makes it difficult to contextualize harm in some
situations. For instance, a bully can be a victim in another social context.
Research suggests several social and psychological factors contribute to a
state known as ‘Bully victims.’[40]
Therefore institutionalizing punishments can have adverse effects on the
development of children.
Despite the focus of law and
policymakers on protecting children online, so far only partial success has
been achieved in this regard given the exposure of children to hate, crime,
sexual content, and other inappropriate influences in varying degrees in
different parts of the world.[41] A
global study conducted by UNICEF[42]
reveals that most child protection and response systems do not account well for
the risks children face online. There arises a need to examine more nuanced
approaches to realize the protection rights of children in digital spaces that
improve protection without restraining participation.
BALANCING RISK & OPPORTUNITY
There are clear dangers in positing
the protectionist rights of children as superior to participatory rights in
digital spaces. The foregoing discussion demonstrates the same. Balancing risks
and opportunities for children in digital spaces is a global challenge.
Nonetheless, a blinkered
protectionist approach restraining children’s participation in digital spaces
must be shunned. These do not account for the socio-cultural rootedness of
digital media today. Such an approach also shuts out possibilities of child
empowerment vide critically understanding and dealing with risks, avoiding
harm, and meaningfully contributing to shaping digital spaces. Balanced and
judicious exposure to the digital environment can make children resilient to
risks and prepare them for adulthood as well[43].
Also, as this field is emerging, involves multiple stakeholders, and is not
restricted to a single discipline, a multi-disciplinary approach accounting for
the various legal and social aspects needs to be adopted.[44]
Article 12 of the UNCRC provides
requisite guidance in this context. It mandates States to empower children “to
actively interact, engage and create communities where their voices are heard
and their views acted upon”.[45]GC
No. 12 (2009), on the “right of the child to be heard” mandates states to
empower children to formulate their ideas and voice their concerns on “all
matters affecting” them. [46]As
the General Comment suggests, lending due credence to children’s opinions and
incorporating the same in law and policy approaches can lead to inclusive
policies and legislation and effective implementation of the same. [47]While
incorporating children’s perspectives is no guarantee against hegemonic
practices in law and policy-making as well as decision-making, it will surely
broaden the set of stakeholders to propel meaningful negotiation between
children’s protection and participatory rights in the digital environment.[48]
The Youth Protection Act in Germany is
a noteworthy step in the direction of realizing children’s rights of
participation as provided under UNCRC while providing them with a safe online
experience. The Act came into effect on May 1, 2021. It aims to ensure that
internet platform providers adopt precautionary methods to protect children
against risks arising from interactions with users and the use of services. The
legislation also prescribes ‘safe default settings at the time of creating a
new profile by a child, and as age and experience progress, settings can be
relaxed thereby granting more freedom. The foregoing requirement incorporates
the principle of ‘evolving capacities’ as provided under Article 5 of the
UNCRC, i.e. “the capacities that develop as children grow older”. The
Act also requires the use of ‘age labels’ by digital media content and
services. Therefore, the legislation aims at enabling young children to safely
experience the digital environment. However, this rests on the presupposition
that parents and other guardians possess digital literacy and sufficient skills
to provide capable guidance to children as they traverse through complexities
in the digital world. A federal agency for the protection of children and young
people in the media will assess the effectiveness of the regulation in a span
of 2 years with the aid of an advisory board that includes young people. The
inclusion of young people on the board is likely to increase acceptance of
protection measures as children themselves have a voice in the process of
evaluation.[49]
CONCLUSION
Discourses on child rights in the
digital age have so far centered around the protectionist rhetoric that regards
children as hapless victims of cyber-crimes. While it is imperative to protect
children from online abuse that often has offline consequences and adversely
affects their physical and mental well-being, it’s not the only pertinent issue
relating to child rights in digital spaces. The rights enshrined under the
UNCRC provide for the provision, participation, and protection of children in
equal measure. Preference to one set of rights over the other fails to serve
the purpose of realizing child rights in digital spaces. As underlined above,
policymakers so far have focused on the protection of children in digital
spaces so much so that it compromises their rights to participation. Children
have distinct needs in comparison to adults and access to digital technologies
provides them with avenues to participate, learn, and make themselves heard.
Therefore, any ICT-related legislation needs to evaluate the impact of overtly
protectionist policies on children’s rights to participate in the digital
world.
When children are not recognized as
significant stakeholders in all matters concerning them and their views and
opinions are not given due consideration, law and policy measures fall flat
being short-term and ineffective. Moreover, draconian or authoritarian measures
to child safety online could be counter-productive to the rights of both
children and adults. While insights from cyber security experts, experience
from law enforcement agencies, technology experts, and other stakeholders in
internet governance are vital to formulating laws and policy measures for
children in cyberspace, providing due weight and recognition to a child’s
perspective will strengthen measures to provide safe, secure and equal access
to children online. It is noteworthy that GC No.25(2021) of the UN CRC directs
state parties to provide primary consideration to the principle of “evolving
capacities” as enshrined under the UNCRC[50]
while formulating measures to protect child rights online.[51]
The principle of evolving capacities of a child refers to the developing
competency of a child as their age and experience advances, which leads to
lesser requirement of protection due to enhancement in their decision-making
ability as well as their ability to contribute to society.
Therefore, a balanced approach to
protecting children by empowering them to deal with risks without compromising
their rights to participation needs to be adopted.[52]
[1] Anjali Dixit is a Ph. D scholar at
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She completed her
LL.M. from NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad in 2021 and qualified UGC NET
(JRF) examination in 2022.
[2] Child protection &
Children’s rights in Digital World, CHILDREN’S RIGHTS DIGITAL
https://childrens-rights.digital/einstieg/index.cfm/topic.277,
Accessed 11 August 2021.
[3] Sonia Livingstone, Sharon
Mclaughlin, Brian O’Neill, Eva Lievens, and Valerie Verdoodt, Children’s
Rights and Digital Technologies in Ursula Kilkelly & Liefaard
Ton (eds), International Human Rights of Children (Springer 2018).
(hereinafter, ‘Ursula 2018’)
[4] UNICEF, Protecting Children
from Online Sexual Exploitation (June 15, 2016)
https://www.unicef.org/media/73506/file/FBO-Guide-for-Religious-Leaders-Communities-2016.pdf. accessed August 14, 2021.
[6] It must be noted here that
“children are entitled to special care and assistance” (UNCRC, art.25) and that
“Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given
to their children” (UNCRC, art.26). Beyond this, there is no implication that
children should be treated in any way differently from adults as regards
fundamental rights.
[7] Onora O'Neill, Children’s Rights
and Children’s Lives, 3 Ethics (1988). Also, P E Veerman, The aging of the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child 4 Int. J. Of Children’s Rights,18 (2010).
[8] United Nations Committee on the
Rights of Child, General Comment No. 25, Children’s Rights in relation to
the digital environment (2021) (hereinafter, ‘GC 25’).
[9] Ursula 2018, supra note
2.
[10] UNCRC art.34 & art.19.
[11] Ingrid Schoon, Risk and
Resilience: Adaptations in Changing Times (Cambridge University Press 2006)
(hereinafter, ‘Schoon 2006’).
[12] Sonia
Livingstone et al., One in Three: Internet Governance and Children's Rights (UNICEF
Office of Research-Innocenti Discussion Papers No. 01, 2016) (hereinafter, ‘Livingstone
2016’).
[13]Andrea Duerager & Sonia
Livingstone, How can parents support children’s internet safety?
(hereinafter, ‘Duerager 2012’) (March 2012)
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/42872/>accessed April 26, 2022.
Helen Whittle et al., Review of young people’s
vulnerabilities to online grooming 18 Aggression and Violent Behavior,
(2013).
[14] Minding Minors, supra note
4.
[15] Schoon 2006, supra note 10.
[16] UNESCO, Fostering Digital
Citizenship through Safe and Responsible use of ICT, (2014)
https://en.unesco.org/icted/sites/default/files/2019-04/62_fosteing_digital_citizenship_through_safe_and_responsible_use_of_ict.pdf
Accessed April 21, 2022.
[17] Ursula 2018, supra note 2.
[18] Linda Raftree & Keshet Bachan,
Integrating information and communication technologies into communication
for development strategies to support and empower marginalized adolescent girls
(August 2013)(hereinafter ‘Linda Raftree 2013’).
https://communityengagementhub.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/04/ICTPaper_Web.pdf
accessed April
20, 2022.
[19] Id.
[20] Sonia Livingstone & Ellen
Helsper, Balancing Opportunities and Risks in Teenagers Use of the Internet:
The Role of Online Skills and Family Context, 2 New Media & Society 12
(2010).
[21] Gerrit Beger, Priscilla Kounkou
Hoveyda, Akshay Sinha, Indonesian youth online: An exploratory study of the
Indonesian digital landscape (January 31, 2012)
accessed August 11, 2021.
[22] Sonia Livingstone et al., A Global
Research Agenda for Children’s Rights in the Digital Age, 8 J. Of Children and
Media, 4 (2014).
[24] Elena Tilovska-Kechedji and Darian
Rakitovan, The Digital World Affecting Children’s Rights and the effects of
Internet Governance J. E.-EUR. CRIM. L. 140(2018).
[25]Athena Duffy et al., Self-Perceived
Pornography Addiction in Adults: A Systematic Review of Definitions and
Reported Impact’ 13 J. of Sexual MED,760 (2016).
[26] Miranda A. H. Horvath et al.,
Basically... Porn Is Everywhere: A Rapid Evidence Assessment on the Effects
that Access and Exposure to Pornography Has on Children and Young People,
Middlesex Univ.'S Res. Repository 33 (2013)
[27] Ellen Johanna Helsper, R18
material: Its Potential Impact on People under 18- An Overview of the Available
Literature (January 2005)
accessed April 26, 2022.
[28] Third,
Amanda, Belerose, Delphine, Dawkins, Urszula, Keltie, Emma, Pihl, Kari, Children's
Rights in the Digital Age, A download from children around the world (October
2014) http://www.aeema.net/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Childrens-Rights-in-the-Digital-Age.pdf
accessed April
21, 2022.
[29] Our Rights in a Digital World
(March 2021)
https://5rightsfoundation.com/uploads/OurRghtsinaDigitalWorld-FullReport.pdf
accessed April 22, 2022.
[30]Gerison Lansdown, Promoting Children’s
Participation in democratic decision-making (February 2001)
https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/insight6.pdf
accessed April 26, 2022.
[31] Sonia Livingstone, Taking Risky
Opportunities in Youthful Content Creation: Teenagers Use of Social Networking
Sites for Intimacy, Privacy and Self-expression 10 NW. MED. SOC. 3 (2008).
[32] Sarah Wilson, Digital
Technologies, Children and Young People's Relationships and Self-Care,14
Children's Geographies 3 (2016).
[33] Id.
[34] Id.
[35] Act on Development of an
Environment that Provides Safe and Secure Internet Use for Young People,2008
(Japan).
[36] Internet Society Perspectives
on Internet Content Blocking (Internet Society, March 24, 2017)
https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2017/internet-content-blocking/
Accessed April 22, 2022.
[37] Enhancing Online Safety for
Children Act 2015 (Australia).
[38]Mapping Online Child Safety in Asia
Pacific (July
2017) https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Online-Child-Safety-in-Asia-Pacific-report-final.pdf
accessed April 26, 2022.
[39] Chris Berg & Simone Breheny, Enhancing
online safety for children (March 2014)
https://www.communications.gov.au/sites/default/files/submissions/Institute_of_Public_Affairs.pdf
accessed April 22, 2022.
[40] Melissa K. Holt, David Finkelhor,
& Glenda Kaufman Kantor, Hidden Forms of Victimization in Elementary
Students Involved in Bullying, 3 School PSY.REV. 36 (2007).
[41] Sonia Livingstone, Leslie Haddon,
Anke Görzig and Kjartan Ólafsson Risk and Safety on the Internet: The
perspective of European Children (2011)
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/ accessed April
21, 2022.
[42] Schoon 2006, supra note 10.
[43] Aratrika Choudhuri, Conceptualizing
Children's Rights in Digital Spaces: Emerging Issues and Challenges 15
Socio-LEGAL REV. 151. (2019).
[44] Duerager 2012, supra note
12.
[45] UNCRC, art.12.
[46] United Nations, Committee on the
Rights of Child, The Right of the Child to be heard, General Comment No.
12 (2009).
[48]Linda Raftree 2013, supra
note 17.
[49]Jutta Croll, New Youth
Protection Law in Germany: Participation of children is a top priority
(March 12, 2021)
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2021/03/12/new-youth-protection-law-in-germany-participation-of-children-is-a-top-priority/
accessed April 27, 2022.
[50] UNCRC, art. 5 & art.14(2).
[51] GC 25, supra note 7.
[52] This article is adapted from
author’s LL.M dissertation ‘Configuring Digital Rights of Children: Emerging
Issues and Challenges, submitted to NALSAR University of Law in August 2021.
Article Information
CHILD RIGHTS IN DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT: THE CONUNDRUM OF BALANCING PROTECTION AND PARTICIPATION By: Anjali Dixit
Authors: Anjali Dixit
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/09/25
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.