Abstract
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.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
