Based on the premise that ‘childhood is the most intensively governed sector of personal existence’ (Rose, 1989, p 121), the CRC emerged from the drafting process as a treaty based entirely on the rights of children. Hence, it successfully incorporated civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, previous declarations and international regulations (for example, Cohen, 1989, p 1448; Todres, 1999, p 166; Naskou-Perraki, 2012, p 39) without segregating the importance of these rights, unlike other human rights instruments (Gomien, 1989, p 162).

It has been supported by scholars (see Hammarberg, 1990, p 99; Goldson and Muncie, 2012, p 48) that the CRC adopted a coherent human rights approach by primarily focusing on the legal interests of children and their rights as individuals. To this end, since its introduction it was perceived as a transformative guiding policy (Melton, 2005, p 919), with a set of highly effective provisions. However, it did not gain support quickly (Johnson, 1989, p 168), as at first there seemed to be no pressing need for it, nor was there a universal consensus on it being introduced.

Interestingly, even though the CRC is considered to be the longest UN human rights treaty in force as well as the most ratified international convention in history, it is also known as the most violated one. That is because according to the literature (such as Todres, 1999, p 192; Pinheiro, 2006, p 33; Defence for Children International, 2007, p 17; Kilkelly, 2008, p 188; Muncie, 2008, p 111; Goldson and Muncie, 2009, p 35; Hammarberg, 2009, p 4), its provisions do not include accurate application guidelines, which has led to its incorrect embodiment in the legal framework of the ratifying Member States and to a point where national policies are in direct contradiction to its context. The latter corroborates the Committee's (1990, p 2) early instructions towards the contracting countries to decide on their own ‘which means are the most appropriate under the circumstances with respect to each of the rights’.

Additionally, when it comes to its legal scope, the CRC cannot be contemplated as a powerful legal instrument (see McSweeney, 1993, p 486; Verhellen, 2000, p 107), despite its binding character upon the States that chose to ratify it.