The Committee’s decision to cut any reference to the concept of sustainable development (which was present as a “key concept” in the first draft of the GC) further ruces the scope for the GC to provide a meaningful roadmap for putting inter-generational justice into practice. This is particularly so with regard to questions that arise in terms of balancing the rights and interests of children in the here and now with those of not yet living children (i.e. future generations of children) and other future human rights-bearers in a context of finite resources.

Interestingly the Committee’s approach

Appear to have been adopt in response to a strong steer from states on this issue – inde the language on future generations and intergenerational justice in the first draft of the GC drew limit state attention. Although several states made fax lists reference to future generations in passing in their comments on both the GC concept note and the first draft! very few address the relevant sections of the draft in any depth. A very small number of states did express concern about. France’s comment on the GC concept note stress that the conceptions of ‘future generations’ and ‘intergenerational equity’ do not figure in the CRC and assert that the GC should be limit to the principles and rights contain in the Convention.

However the Committee went on to mention both

These issues specifically. (While France reiterat the general point about Committe lead generation restraint in relation to a number of its comments on the draft GC! it did not address the future generations The Committee addressing china numbers section specifically). Furthermore! although Canada assert that the Committee’s focus in terms of future generations (and intergenerational justice) should be limit to born/living children (reiterating points made in its input on the GC concept note)! the GC does not explicitly limit its scope to children in the here-and-now.