The author notes that the growth of restorative justice practices seems to be hampered by the consequences of the effective socialization into the ‘penal equation’ that presents punishment as the necessary consequence of criminal offending. Upbringing in a different conflict-culture may be a fundamental condition for creating more room for restorative justice in the formal sphere of criminal justice. The need for a different socialization is also noted and discussed in the movement for human rights and has resulted in an Action Plan for human rights education of UNESCO in 2005. A satisfactory implementation of this action plan seems to be absent in the Netherlands today and methods of human rights education do not refer at all to the potentials of restorative practices such as peer mediation in schools. On the other hand, authors in restorative justice do not often refer to human rights and how they are promoted. The author claims that it is plausible that making ample room for peer mediation and conferencing in schools can be an effective way, not only to address offending conduct that often implies a breach of basic human rights – the most basic values therein being human dignity and equality – but also to make new generations aware of the meaning of human rights in their daily interactions and the qualities of their own social life.

This contribution starts with an introduction of human rights, children’s rights and restorative justice. What are the links and differences between these concepts and how do they interrelate? An overview of human rights for children in international standards relevant to the discussion on juvenile justice, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and additional instruments, is given. It is examined how restorative justice fits in this framework.
Human rights are one of the main pillars of our modern society. General juvenile justice principles such as diversion, the use of detention only as a measure of last resort and focusing on re-integration give a clear basis for restorative justice practice. Recent international and European conventions, guidelines and recommendations dealing with juvenile justice explicitly recommend the use of restorative justice. It is actually seen as the main priority focus of the reaction to youth criminality. The Committee on the Rights of the Child declared in General Comment 10 that the best interests of the child imply that the traditional aims of criminal justice – repression and retribution – should make room for rehabilitation and reintegration. Today’s focus on youth delinquency should be a restorative one. But how to implement rather broad notions such as restorative justice in individual cases and to make them fulfil internationally accepted human rights standards. With the model of Mitchell and Moore it is explored how children’s rights (mainly article 40 and the main principles of the CRC) and restorative justice are connected and how they can use each other. The need is stressed and some tools are given to work towards a ‘rights based restorative justice’.

This article provides a perspective on the development of restorative justice practice in Northern Ireland. The island of Ireland has a standing history as to the use of restorative justice. In fact, the earliest restorative form of law dates from 2000 BCE, the so-called Brehon Laws. To date, Northern Ireland features as a divided society; over the past 35 years intercommunity conflict brought devastation and heartbreak to the health of the community. Nevertheless, initial soundings were heard as to how the practice of restorative justice might be re-introduced to Northern Ireland. Already in 1989, the Probation Board indicated its intention of piloting a Victim Offender Mediation Programme. From that time, serious attempts were undertaken to implement restorative justice within the North-Irish society. Initiatives were undertaken by Republican as well as Loyalist communities, both being eager to move away from violent community based justice. Special attention was given towards juvenile crime. In 2000 this interest in restorative justice led to a commitment from the North-Irish authorities to put restorative justice matters at the heart of the criminal justice system for young offenders. As a result, in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 the Youth Conference Service was initiated. Between 2003 and the present, Youth Conference Orders or Plans have been the most common disposals for adjudicated offenders up to eighteen years of age. The focus is on the parties resolving how the young person can make amends to the victim and what can be done to prevent further offending. All Agencies linked into the Youth Justice system recognize the special needs of young people. Recent figures show the numbers of young people going into youth custody in Northern Ireland have decreased due to the use of restorative justice models.

Due to immigration the Dutch have made a significant contribution to the development of New Zealand, especially in the field of juvenile justice and adoption. As for New Zealand’s Youth Justice Service, the introduction of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act in 1989 has been a landmark in New Zealand’s history of dealing with juvenile delinquency. While it was not designed as a restorative justice system, the current system is tuned towards restorative justice. Until then, New Zealand had a shameful history as far as the handling of juvenile delinquency is concerned. The Maori, whose youngsters were – and still are – overrepresented in juvenile statistics, heavily criticized this model, emphasizing the need to strengthen the bond between the (extended) family and the juvenile offender, as well as the need to provide for redress. In the same period, the United Nations Convention on Children’s Rights (UNCROC) was introduced (1989), the Act of 1989 paying tribute to the UNCROC. As the national juvenile justice system to some extent does not live up to the standards of the UNCROC, there remains room for improvement. However, black clouds gather over New Zealand’s juvenile justice system, for the present government has announced to be in favor of a punitive oriented policy; there is a call to get ‘tough on juvenile crime’. This policy, however, implies setting back the clock and endangers the current orientation on restorative justice, as well as the legal values set out by the UNCROC.