Explore the vast range of titles available.

This work is the first global analysis of national minimum ages of criminal responsibility, the international legal obligations that surround them and the principal considerations for establishing and implementing respective age limits.

A wide array of regional and international legal instruments gives specific consideration to the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR), and at times creates legal obligations for relevant countries. The Committee's recommendations, largely affirmed over time by other instruments and bodies, suggest a general convergence in international standards for countries' MACRs and their implementation. In the case of Argentina, the Committee focused on the inherent links between MACRs and certain grievous children's rights violations. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) States Parties include the only two countries in the world that have not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Somalia and the United States of America. The opinion subsequently refers to relevant provisions of the CRC and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, as discussed below, and refutes application of the criminal law under the situacion irregular doctrine.

This chapter offers a closer examination of some of the major difficulties and implications of practical minimum ages of criminal responsibility (MACR) implementation. Responses to children younger than MACRs who come into conflict with the law-for which there are effective, rights-compliant, and economical options-are generally not provided or are problematic. In dozens of countries, state responses to children younger than MACRs who come into conflict with the law are effectively criminal procedures and punishments, forming one of the most widespread MACR-related dilemmas worldwide. Many countries essentially treat the MACR as an absolute cut-off; there are no substantial provisions for what to do with children below its limit, and so there is no effective state response to their actions. In contrast to courts' disregard for MACRs, extrajudicial actions are carried out against young children by law enforcement officials as well as through private vigilante justice.

This chapter explores the key considerations for establishing and implementing minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACRs) in ways that support the rights of children. The international consensus further holds that children younger than MACRs at the time of alleged offenses cannot be formally charged or subjected to penal law procedures or responses, in either juvenile or adult criminal justice systems. The enactment of MACRs is a highly political and revealing moment in the constant struggle to define childhood. Increasing MACRs beyond 12-13 years in hopes of avoiding the problems of juvenile justice seems neither sustainable nor likely to respect children's rights in practice. For children who have reached MACRs, there exists the possibility of criminal responsibility. The MACR is indeed a crucial marker in childhood, but this age limit alone cannot end the rights violations that often surround it in practice.

This chapter focuses on rights as the continuum lies even closer to justice: the rights of children implicated directly in juvenile justice systems, who among other things have attained the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR). International children's rights affirm children's legal status across many contexts, and children enjoy a generally expanding range of rights and protections as circumstances shift towards justice in the welfare-justice continuum. Children's rights to respect for their views and to effective participation at trial are critical in international juvenile justice standards' mediation along the welfare-justice continuum. The final principle within international juvenile justice standards that helps mediate welfare-justice tensions is the goal of reintegration. An even broader range of guarantees is provided to children who have attained the MACR and are alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law. The concept of children's evolving capacities is also critical, refusing any assumption that children are incompetent.

This chapter offers a complementary overview of the major historical trends behind minimum ages of criminal responsibility (MACRs) themselves. In the context of MACRs in particular, current research confirms that Afghanistan, Comoros, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Sudan all derive their provisions to some extent from Islamic criminal law principles. MACRs derived from Islamic law not only deviate from international norms against discrimination, but also from core principles of classical Islamic doctrine. A final influence of Soviet law seems to be the problematic institutional response to children in conflict with the law who are younger than formal MACRs. Throughout Somalia, both customary/traditional and Islamic law play a crucial role, due in part to historically weak state institutions. In both Asia and Africa, a significant problem for judges was 'the fixing of the age necessary to support capacity for criminal responsibility'.