“States Parties undertake to promote and encourage international co-operation with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right recognized in the present article. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries.”  (Convention on the Rights of a Child, Article 24, Section 4.)

    According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and international human rights norms, the responsibility for the health and safety of people, and more specifically children, in a state does not lie only with that state.  If a human rights crisis occurs and the situation in a country is such that it cannot  or will not provide care for its own children, it is the responsibility of the international community to intervene.  This responsibility is implicit for all countries in the international system, but the responsibility is also concretely explicit for the countries who have signed the Convention, which includes every country except the US and Somalia.

    The fact is well accepted that AIDS in Africa has become an epidemic, and it is fairly obvious that the developing countries of southern Africa are not equipped to deal with this kind of public health crisis.  However, the international community refuses to step up and fulfill its obligation to protect the children of Africa while their governments are unwilling or unable.  Two of the factors causing this refusal to act are the  plagues that afflict most international law, including the Convention: lack of specificity and lack of means of enforcement.  Although every country in the world (save two) signed a pledge to protect children around the world, never said specifically who, how, or when.  They used this pledge as a means to diffuse responsibility and save face.  Governments are able to say, "Look, we support protecting children, we signed this Convention," while making the language of that Convention general enough that they would never be forced to actually do anything.  Since the Convention makes clear that it is every country's responsibility, it essentially guarantees that it is no one's responsibility.  If their is a crisis, why should one country provide assistance, if it is everyone responsibility?  Thus, the Convention written to protect children essentially acts as an excuse not to protect them.

    The second issue is enforcement.  Even though all but two countries have agreed to protect children worldwide, there is no mechanism to take recourse on the countries if they do not follow through on their obligations.  Even if the Convention was written to specifically lay out who is responsible for what, taking away the problem of diffused responsibility, nothing could be done if a country did not live up to its responsibility.  Unless a mechanism of enforcement against rogue countries is created, the Convention will not sufficiently protect the children of Africa and the rest of the world.

    International human rights laws and norms state that children deserve special protection and place the responsibility for that protection on the international community, not just the national government of the country of residence.  The devastation of a generation that is occurring in southern Africa is a human right violation, but because international laws are too generalized it is impossible to lay blame for the violation on one party.  All countries are responsible for these children, but no country is going to spend the time and money to care for them out of a humanitarian concern.  Governments are realists, and they will not protect these children unless they perceive it to be in their self interest.  Therefore, the international law must quickly be made specific and enforceable, before the AIDS epidemic wipes out the entire continent.