The Position of Imami Jurisprudence and Transnational Instruments in the Protection of Children's Rights Regarding Labor and Discipline: A Comparative Approach

Abstract

What is the definition of punishment and corporal punishment in general, and corporal punishment of children in particular, within the human rights system, and what are its manifestations? What emerges from discussions concerning corporal punishment in the doctrine and the international human rights system is that this concept is closely associated with such notions as torture, cruel treatment, inhuman treatment, and degrading punishment. Indeed, it is primarily through instruments prohibiting torture and inhuman treatment that the international human rights system has articulated and progressively developed the prohibition of corporal punishment. In addition to their conceptual similarities, these notions also overlap in practice; from a logical perspective, they share a partially intersecting relationship. Consequently, clarifying concepts such as torture, inhuman treatment, and degrading treatment is indispensable for understanding the principal subject of this discussion and significantly contributes to clarifying the status of corporal punishment. On the other hand, according to the consensus of Imami jurists, a child lacks legal capacity to dispose of his or her property and labor and therefore cannot validly enter into a contract of hire. Likewise, it is not permissible for an employer, under any pretext, to employ a child through a hiring arrangement. Concerning the protection of working children, Principle 9 of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Child states that “the child shall be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty, and exploitation. The child shall not be the subject of traffic in any form” (United Nations, 1959). Therefore, with respect to child labor, the position adopted in jurisprudence is largely consistent with the protective approach reflected in international instruments.