To sustain this "radical" point of view, it is crucial to consider the CRC as something that has evolved from the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights when, for the first time in history, a large portion of humanity after the war stated, as a universal principle, the "inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family".
These values also represent the very core and the objectives of the CRC together with the possibility for the child to be recognised as a whole and dignified person. Reconnecting the CRC to the 1948 Declaration could help us in understanding its important specification on persons from 0 to 18 years but also the fact that it is impossible to recognise their fundamental rights if not of a wider recognition of a human rights dimension, which involves all persons.
Following this line of thinking, we could reach the idea that children and their rights are always to be conceived "in context" both in time and space although many approaches, professionals and agencies are continuing to disconnect children (and their vulnerabilities) from their history and/or from the causes and responsibilities that are producing lack of recognition and violation of rights.
The specifications of the CRC have to be connected with the instruments of the other human rights bodies that represent the cultural ground and environment that has to be considered in order for children’s rights not to be residual in our culture.
At the same time, the specificity of the CRC could become "alive" only if not considered in isolation. Every human being has been a child and every child is a human being. This simple consideration indicates the importance of supporting the principles and the provisions of the CRC within a framework and a context that include all persons together with their rights at any age. Without a clear cultural and substantial connection with other human rights treaties, the risk is to consider the CRC just as an instrument that has only temporary relevance for each individual.