To Vote or to Be a Child: The interaction between the age of majority and the voting age from a child rights perspective by Marta Kuljon

Degree Programme: Postgraduate Certificate in Children’s Rights and Participation

Introduction

Age is an important characteristic of a person. It determines what activities one can participate in: when one starts school, obtain a driving licence, join the military forces, purchase alcohol, get married, and is allowed to vote. Age also defines who is a child and who is an adult. Children of a certain age, like adults, can drive, work, have a bank account, and engage in financial contracts. However, these entitlements do not alter their legal status as children. In most countries, the age of majority coincides with the age of voting. Nevertheless, in others individuals are allowed to participate in elections from the age of 16, while remaining legally defined as children.

This essay seeks to analyse whether enfranchising children can serve as a legitimate reason to lower the age of majority, based on Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (UN, 1989). It will examine the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s perspective on the voting age and age of majority and states’ practices in applying the UNCRC’s definition of a child, as well as academic debates on these topics.

Finally, it will assess whether electoral legislation and enfranchising children constitute a justified exceptional circumstance (Tobin, 2019) to lower the age of majority and argue that while from the child rights perspective, lowering the voting age is justified and desirable, there are no convincing arguments to support linking it with lowering the age of majority. 

Two ages or one: majority and voting

The age of majority has been progressively lowered by many countries from 21 to 18 since the 1970s, which reflects the dynamic nature of the concept of legal adulthood and underlines efforts to unify and codify the age bracket that defines childhood. Currently, only six countries have set the age of majority below 18.

Some countries tie the attainment of the age of majority with certain events, such as getting married, accessing military services, or becoming financially independent (World Population Review (no date) Age of majority by country, 2026, Fundamental Rights Agency (2017) Age of Majority, Gielen &Roopnarine (2016), Tobin (2019)). The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the child has however repeatedly emphasised in its concluding observations the importance of aligning the age of majority of 18 with the UNCRC definition, independently from possibilities to enjoy some of the “adult” rights (Tobin 2019).

One such right, traditionally perceived as restricted to adults is the right to vote. Since the beginning of this century, almost 20 countries around the globe lowered it to 16 and 17 (Beckman, 2009), with some restrictions, such as the type of elections – local (Germany) or national (Malta). Hungary and Dominican Republic allow 16-year-olds to vote only if they are married, and Bosna and Hercegovina and Slovenia – if they are employed (European Youth Forum (no date), Lower the voting age, CRIN (no date), Countries where under 18s can vote, Council of Europe (2011), Expansion of democracy by lowering the voting age to 16). Based on an analysis of internet data conducted by the author, all the countries that lowered the voting age have kept the age of majority at 18 (World Population Review, no date) Age of majority by country, 2025).

These varied age thresholds linked to different activities, as opposed to the legal framework determining the age of majority, highlight that acquiring participation rights and civic rights and duties, including the right to vote, do not necessarily align with the age of majority. This discrepancy prompts further consideration of whether there is a need to align these thresholds and explores the interaction between enfranchisement and legal adulthood from a child’s rights perspective. Additionally, it necessitates an examination of the possible implications on voting practices, democratic processes in general and the rights of children.

The UNCRC defines a child as “every human being below the age of 18 unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier”. It does not explicitly mention the right to vote or voting age. However, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 25) talks about a right of every citizen to vote (without unreasonable restrictions) lacking any reference to age.

These two frameworks mutually reinforce arguments in favour of lowering voting age limits, while simultaneously creating a space for interpretation in defining participation rights for those under 18. This lack of clarity calls for a nuanced discourse, a need emphasised by scholars such as Freeman (1997) or Neuman and Ibrahim (2023) who discuss the implications of rigid age thresholds on the perception of evolving capacities of children, including capacities to participate in decision making processes, within international law.

The enfranchisement of children is often seen as a marker of adulthood since those two align at the age of 18 in many countries. Arguments in favour of lowering the age of majority to the voting age centring on the unification of age limits and the adaptation of the current international child definition to social changes. However, these claims have been contested by child rights scholars such as Tobin (2019) who points out to a link between a “legitimate aim” (lowering voting age) and a “proportionate measure (respect for children’s rights)” and Kirk (2022) who argues that young people are capable of taking on more private and civil responsibilities, including voting, in line with article 3 of the UNCRC and with relevant safeguarding to which children are entitled, regardless of their age.

Research appears to agree that becoming active participants in democratic processes from an early age may foster positive democratic habits, increase trust in politics in adult life and ultimately benefit many areas of society and the economy, as it introduces more varied citizens’ perspectives into political debate (Eichorn and Bergh, 2021; Wall 2024). This perspective aligns with Articles 5, 12 and 29 of the UNCRC.

Definition of a child

The UNCRC was the first to clearly define who is a child, albeit allowing for flexibility (Tobin, 2019, Lansdown and Vaghri, 2022), followed by the Article 2 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (1999) states that “a child means every human being below the age of 18 years”, which was adopted to complements the provisions of the UNCRC in its regional dimensions. 

The Committee has not always been consistent regarding a universal age for different activities. UNCRC itself provides another age definition (15), in Article 38, for recruitment into armed forces, which was later raised to 18 for compulsory enlistment and 16 for voluntary enlistment in the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict (Breen, 2007). In General Comment No. 10 (UN, 2007), it recommends that the absolute minimum age of criminal responsibility should be 12 years and encourages States to raise it further.

In General Comment No. 4 (UN, 2003), the Committee recommends that States increase the minimum age for marriage, with and without parental consent, to 18 years, while allowing for exceptional circumstances in which a mature and capable child over the age of 16 may marry. The same document also recommends setting a minimum age for sexual consent, which should be equal for boys and girls, without specifying at what age this should be set. Yet, it emphasizes that adolescents up to 18 years-old have all the rights in the Convention, are entitled to special protection and can exercise these rights as their capacities evolve (Article 5). 

Tobin (2019) argues that the Committee on the rights of the child was favourably approaching states in setting minimum age requirements as protective measures against “the potential harm to children”. Participation in democratic processes, in the majority of countries do not pose harm, therefore unifying voting age with the age of majority cannot be justified by the need to protect children. Rather, it can adversely impact their rights to participate and exercise their evolving capacities and autonomy.

The UNCRC allows for flexibility under national jurisdictions; however, early in the Guidelines for Periodic Reports (1991), the Committee requested States Parties “to provide updated information with respect to Article 1 of the Convention, concerning the definition of

a child under their domestic laws and regulations, specifying any differences between girls and boys” and pushed State Parties to align their national definition of a child with the UNCRC. It emphasized that “customary law” should not prevail in this case (Mozambique CRC/C/15/Add.172). States Parties need to explain how children will be protected and will enjoy their rights as enshrined in the UNCRC, even if the age of majority is set below 18, and in any case are still under an obligation to protect children under 18 years old, as emphasized by the Human Rights Committee in 1989 (Lansdown and Vaghri, 2022).

In its Concluding Observations, the Committee strongly encouraged State Parties to review their age of majority if set below 18, such as minimum age for marriage and military service (e.g. Sri Lanka CRC/C/15/Add.207, Saudi Arabia CRC/C/SAU/CO/2, Dominica CRC/C/15/Add.238, Belgium, CRC/C/BEL/CO/5-6).

All the above illustrates the complexities inherent in determining a universally applicable age of majority. International conventions recommend minimum age for engagement in specific activities, thereby acknowledging the need to balance the rights to protection and empowerment of children, while advocating for a consistent age definition of a child. In light of these complexities and discrepancies, the argument for unifying different ages by aligning the voting age with the age of majority appears to be less compelling. The existence of varying ages for different activities and this balancing exercise is a recognition that children’s capacities evolve at different stages of their development and needs to be acknowledge in law (Lansdown, 2005).

Democracy and elections

“Democratic elections are the cornerstone of democracy and are decisive for ensuring the legitimacy of democratic institutions.” (Council of Europe)

The UNCRC emphasizes the importance of children’s participation in decision-making processes (article 12) and obliges States Parties to recognise child’s freedom to association (article 13). General Comment 20 (UN, 2016) explains that this includes joining political parties and underlines that adolescents can engage in politics and public debates (also through social media) and have the potential to impact their “communities and countries”. 

It is outside the scope of this essay to explore the notion of democracy, its meaning for children, or its impact on their lives. However, it is crucial to mention that, as with many systems established by humans, it changes over time, adapting to fit either those who are in power or society itself (which is clearly the preferred option).

The landscape of electoral rights, which are an inherent part of democracy, has evolved over time. Voting rights as we know them today were not available to all, not even in ancient Greece and Rome – they were restricted to freeborn males between 18 and 20. In the 18th and 19th centuries, representatives to governments were still elected by the male population with various qualifications – such as income, literacy, and owning property (Wall, 2021).

Gradually, different groups were granted a right to vote – women in 1893 in New Zealand, in 1991 the Swiss Canton Appenzell Innerrhoden was forced to accept women’s suffrage by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland.

This evolution shows that along societal changes, new models and rules of enfranchisement are needed. Today, children – who form 25% of the world’s population (UNICEF, 2025) are excluded from voting in elections.

There are no objective obstacles to reviewing current rules relating to enfranchisement. Quite the opposite – there have been many arguments put forward advocating for lowering the voting age (European Youth Forum, 2025; Pickard, 2009), ranging from universal enfranchisement for everyone, proxy-claim votes including for babies (Wall, 2021), lowering the voting age to six, as a moment of entering primary education (Runciman, 2021), to lowering the voting age to 15-16–17-year-olds

There have been many voices arguing that lowering the voting age is in line with child rights and would be beneficial to children themselves and society. The UNCRC emphasizes the importance of children’s participation in decision-making processes (Article 12) and obliges states parties to recognise a child’s freedom of association (Article 13). In General Comment No. 5 (UN, 2003), the Committee observed that lowering the voting age from eighteen is a positive development. This has been advocated for by the Committee through its Concluding Observations, for example to Scotland in 2016, England and Northern Ireland in 2023. The Committee also expressed appreciation for lowering the age to 16 in Germany (UN, 2022) and Wales (UN, 2023) in 2022 and 2023 respectively.

Opponents put forward arguments about the dependence of this group on adults (living with family and potentially being influenced), weaker capacities to make informed decisions (Eichorn and Bergh, 2021) and the traditionally lower turnout of youngest voters – 16-18 +(Pich, et al, 2018). However, based on existing studies and examples, 16- and 17-year-olds have showed higher political engagement than older (18-18 – year-olds) first-time voters (Eichorn and Bergh, 2021). In addition, the political engagement of the youngest voters is multifaceted and cannot be reduced to mere electoral abstention. Piche et al. (2018) highlights that this abstention can be occasionally attributable to the rapidly changing life circumstances of young people (such as mobility, transient housing, precarious employment) which voting systems fail to accommodate.

Wall (2021) argues that the right to vote, as a right to express one’s opinions freely, should not be limited by age. For the time being, the idea of having an unrestricted franchise by age is for many a theoretical discussion – led by adults in most cases. French (2007) points out that denying the right to vote means denying the right to influence and shape decisions about the current and future lives, which is the essence of Article 12 of the UNCRC (Tobin, 2019, Lansdown, 2010).

It is interesting to observe that, in practical terms, assuming that the voting age is not restricted at all and a national election resulting in forming a government takes place every four years,
a child could vote four times before reaching the age of majority at 18 – four times views and needs children, could influence political landscapes of regions, countries or organisations – such as the European Union. It is essential to acknowledge the existing influence of children on decision- and policy-making processes. For instance, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child consulted children during the development of Optional Protocol No. 4 to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which addresses the right to free primary and secondary education (Child Rights Connect, no date). Similarly, the EU Children’s Participation Platform has engaged children in discussions on critical issues such as safety, poverty and social inclusion, and cyberbullying (EU Children’s Participation Platform, n.d.). Furthermore, Ireland has institutionalised child participation through nationally embedded legislative frameworks, ensuring structured involvement in policy development (Gov.ie, 2025). While these examples demonstrate meaningful child participation in specific policy domains, they do not extend to formal democratic or electoral processes at the local or national level.

If children’s voices were formally included in electoral processes, they could fundamentally reshape not only political parties’ priorities but also the trajectory of child-centered policies (Rekker, 2022). For instance, despite sustained efforts, child poverty, continues to affect 19.3 million children (one in four) in the European Union alone (European Commission, 2026) and more than 412 million globally (one in five) (UNICEF, 2025). This persistent issue demands systematic integration into national social policies, informed and guided by children’s own perspectives (Ridge, 2002).

UNICEF’s 2025 report on child poverty underlines that many countries, when confronted with declining financial resources, deprioritise long-term, child-related policies. Research shows that those who experience economic hardship in childhood, or belong to minority, or other disadvantaged groups, often lack access to civic education at school and are less likely to engage politically as young adults (Dermody et al., 2008; Sloam, 2014). This again makes their needs “invisible”. This political exclusion is more structural – groups without voting voice or rights, such as children, are overlooked in policy design. Politicians driven by electoral incentives, tend to prioritise the so-called “grey vote”, coming from a larger and more reliable voting bloc (Pickard, 2019; Rigde, 2002 and their needs, such as pensions (Hills, 2017). More methodically rigorous research is needed to be to evaluate the potential impact of enfranchising nearly 80 million of new voters in the EU alone.

Nevertheless, one could assume that if children could vote, this dynamic would shift. Political parties would need to directly address child poverty, mental health and education in their electoral manifestos to secure votes of this newly enfranchised demographic. Historical precedents, though limited support this hypothesis, e.g.: in 2017 campaign, the United Kingdom Labour Party discussed university fees and affordable housing (Pickard, 2019.). Similarly, enfranchising children, could compel parties to address child-specific issues, that disproportionately affect youngest generations.

Age of majority and voting age

Historically, the age of majority has fluctuated, ranging from way below 18 to 21. However, in the early 1970s, many European countries, including the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, lowered the age of majority from 21 to 18. This was intended to reflect societal changes, as stated in the Irish Law Reform Commission’s Working Paper no. 2 (1977). The shift may have also been influenced by the emerging child liberation movement (Breen, 2006). Notably, the 1969 UK reform that lowered the age of majority also reduced the voting age to 18 (Tonge et al., 2021).

However, as highlighted by Tonge et al. (2021), recent changes in enfranchisement have not linked the voting age to the age of majority. Furthermore, research suggests that young people do not perceive voting as a marker of adulthood. This raises a crucial question: Must there and should there be a link between the voting age and the age of majority?

Tonge et al. (2021) argue that lowering the voting age and the alignment of these two ages in the UK in 1969 was merely a convenient coincidence, rather than the result of a political campaign or demands from young people. It was part of a broader reform package, driven by discussions around lowering the age of majority. In other words, young people were granted the right to vote at 18, because they were considered adults at that age, not the other way around. This challenges the recent argument that young people become adults because they can vote.

A pertinent illustration of the discourse is the 2021 annual debate convened by the Family Justice Council on lowering the age of majority to 16 (Judiciary UK, 2021). Ruth Henke QC, who presented a case in favour of the motion, argued that contemporary society increasingly encourages children’s independence and lowering voting age to 16 (e.g. in Scotland), is a recognition of their capacities (Judiciary UK, 2021, Voting in elections in Scotland, 2025). According to Henke, adolescents at point, possess sufficient maturity and have access to enough information to make informed decisions, thereby justifying the attribution of voting rights and corresponding adjustments to the age of majority. Furthermore, Henke highlighted existing legal inconsistencies between the age of majority and certain responsibilities that children have prior to their attainment of 18 years. She emphasized that reducing the age of majority would not necessarily entail removal of protective provisions for those in need. The validity of her argument was reinforced by two members of the Family Justice Young People’s Board (Judiciary UK, 2021).

Deirdre Fottrell QC and Shabina Begum argued in this debate against lowering the age of majority, citing international human rights law and the need for universal standards to protect and promote human rights. Fottrell emphasized that flexibility in human rights can be detrimental, as concepts of childhood vary across societies. She noted that the UNCRC’s intention was to raise the age of majority, and that only eight countries had (at the time of the debate) an age of majority below 16. Fottrell stressed that considering changes to protections requires a comprehensive examination of all rights affected, including the application of the best interest’s principle. She concluded that autonomy and protection are complementary, requiring a solid legal framework for age of majority in line with international standards. Begum highlighted the potential consequences of lowering the age of majority for children in vulnerable situations, arguing, based on 2019 data on forced marriages in the United Kingdom and provisions of the 2015 Serious Crime Act concerning female genital mutilation in, that this change may force children to protect themselves, as they would lose access to the child protection system.

This debate clearly illustrates the balancing act between protection and empowerment represented by linking the lowering of the voting age to the age of majority. Indeed, additional two years of protection are significant, which is particularly correct in the context of a 16-year-old’s lifespan, where two years represent a substantial proportion of a child’s life.

Interestingly, in the context of this debate, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its Concluding Observations to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 2023, expressed concerns about 16- and 17-year-olds who “do not always receive protection as children (…)”. The Committee recommended adapting the national legislation and clearly defining those 16- and 17-year-olds, as children in law and to make sure that they receive protection as children in practice, independently of the voting age.

Thus, the debate about the age of majority is far broader than the discussion on lowering the voting age. Nevertheless, the right to participate in democratic decisions which influences years to come and has an impact on society as a whole, encompasses many aspects relevant to empowering children in line with the UNCRC and its principles, such as the best interests of the child, evolving capacities, the right to be protected from harm, and the right to have a say in issues that affect them (Lansdown, 2005 and 2010; Tobin, 2019).

Based on the presented discussions, this essay argues that although the age of 18 as a marking line between childhood and adulthood is a legal and, as some argue, an artificial one based primarily on Western legal traditions and does not fully reflect societal changes (Huijsmans et al., 2024), it is a desired legal definition to ensure children’s rights and to keep a reference point for balancing various rights, protection and empowering children.

Interfering with the definition of a child could bring unwanted and unexpected results that may be difficult to reverse. Ultimately, it is not about changing individuals, their rights, or their characteristics – in this case, children – but about changing the system, making it more inclusive and adapted to the needs of many (or all) rather than just some (Wall, 2021).

Alternative concepts of the age of majority

Concepts of a less rigid boundaries between childhood and adulthood were proposed by scholars.

Arnett (2000) coined the term ’emerging adulthood’ (18-25 years) to reflect the gradual nature of transition into adulthood. Indeed, the educational phase often overlaps or is combined with job training and so, the moment of starting an independent life is prolonged beyond the age of maturity. He suggests that young people’s perceptions of adulthood diverge from traditional markers and by extension the concept of childhood does as well.

Hamilton (2024) takes it further and argues that the fixed age of majority does not accurately reflect the gradual transition from childhood to adulthood as individual capacities, cultural norms, and responsibilities evolve uniquely. She advocates for a hypothetical model involving a context-specific age of majority that is determined through individual assessments.

Lansdown (2005) proposes an even more advanced alternative legal framework that balances children’s participatory rights, evolving capacities with adequate protection: (1) replacing age-limits with individual assessments of competence; (2) presuming competence, with the burden of proof on adults to demonstrate incapacity to exercise certain rights; (3) allowing children to demonstrate competence and acquire rights earlier than the stipulated age limit; and (4) implementing age limits only for those rights vulnerable to adult abuse or neglect, while presuming competence for other rights.

While these ideas are conceptually provoking, they suggest that examining any links between age of majority and voting age (or any other age limits set for access specific to areas of social and civic engagement) is not a valid consideration, since the capacity to achieve any of these should be assessed at an individual basis. Such analysis extends beyond the current debate, as it would need to examine potential consequences on the UNCRC provisions and specifically its four general provisions (Tobin, 2019).

Debate

Tonge et al. (2021) note that further analysis is necessary to clarify the concept of adulthood and whether voting should be a marker associated with adulthood, influencing the age of majority definition. This highlights the need for a nuanced consideration of the relationship between electoral rights, childhood, and adulthood.

An examination of recent trends and shifts suggests that changes to electoral systems are inevitable. Democracy is nowadays unfolding as much online as offline. Given the increasingly crucial role of young voices in shaping online discourse, which is rapidly supplanting offline engagement, and to respect international child rights obligations, it is essential to consider their participation in the democratic process.

At the launch event of the European Competence Centre on Inclusive, Meaningful and Safe Child Participation, Gean, a young ambassador for Save the Children 21, posed a provocative question: “Since when having an impact has a time limit?” (Inclusive Child Participation Networks, 2026). Extending this question to the focus of this essay raised a critical challenge:  Why should children, who are directly affected by policies on social welfare, education, climate, digital environment, be systematically excluded from electing the representatives who by shaping these policies, influence their lives.

As Breen (2006) argues, any differential treatment of children based on age must be proportionate and well-justified. Similarly, Daly (2022) emphasizes that administrative or judicial decision-makers must assess the legitimacy, proportionality, and necessity of any limitations imposed on children. A re-evaluation of the definition of a child in the context of electoral rights, driven by a desire for consistency or adherence to traditional views, could potentially undermine children’s rights if not accompanied by substantial legislative changes to ensure that those who vote before reaching 18 receive adequate protection and respect for their rights, at least to the same extent as before enfranchisement.

Established minimum age for activities such as independent medical decision-making, counselling, and certain aspects of family law, as outlined in General Comment 20 (UN, 2016), are determined in line with evolving capacities and the right to protection, without altering the definition of a child. Certain activities, such as exploitative work and army recruitment, should be reserved for those over 18, as they compromise children’s rights to protection from harm and abuse. Voting, however, does not appear to have a similar impact on children and should neither be restricted to adults nor should it influence the age definition (Wall, 2021; Wagner et al. 2012; Eichorn & Berg, 2021).

The Committee emphasizes that lowering the voting age to under 18 should be accompanied by appropriate civic education and support for young people to understand the implications of active citizenship (UN, 2016). Notably, the Committee does not suggest that extending electoral rights to children would alter their status; rather, enfranchising children would be an extension of their rights in line with evolving capacities, provided they remain children and continue to enjoy the right to education and information while being protected from harm and exposure to harmful content. While individual assessment or assumption of competence, as suggested by Lansdown (2005), may present practical challenges, kindergartens, schools, and other educational facilities could play a role in facilitating children’s voting engagement based, for example, on topics or solutions rather than individual candidates or political parties. Unfortunately, such a system would leave certain groups of children (e.g. undocumented children, or children not attending formal education) disadvantaged.

The Child Rights International Network (CRIN) has recently initiated a discussion on how democratic systems might adapt or flex its boundaries to uphold children’s right to have a say as per UNCRC particularly in contexts, where full enfranchisement remains unavailable. One such avenue is deliberative democracy, exemplified by citizens’ assemblies. Empirical evidence already demonstrates the feasibility of this approach: a growing number of cases involve randomly selected citizens, including children as young as 10 (though most participants are aged 15 or older), who discuss primarily climate related issues. (CRIN, 25 February2026). While the long-term impact of children’s participation in deliberative assemblies on policy outcomes and election results remains to be systematically analysed, these emerging models offer a compelling case study in democratic innovation. They demonstrate that political inclusion need not await legal reclassification; instead, societies can reconfigure participation to include those traditionally excluded, such as children, without altering their legal status, instead still preserving their specific rights. The example of assemblies involving children as young as 10 challenges the rigid linkage between voting rights and the age of majority, suggesting that competence and structured opportunities—rather than age alone—should gatekeep political agency (Sloam, 2014). Future research must assess their tangible policy influence, but their existence alone signals a paradigm shift: democracy is not a fixed system but a dynamic framework capable of adapting to amplify silenced voices—including, those of children.

Conclusions

Why voting should not equal adulthood? Firstly, while lowering the voting age strengthens the realisation of children’s rights, empowers them and gives them a tool to participate more fully in decision-making, lowering the age of majority removes their rights under the UNCRC. In many countries, based on national legislation, that would remove their rights to education, free medical care, and protection from and within social services and juvenile systems, to mention the most obvious ones. It is crucial for children to remain children and to be able to enjoy the protection and support from adults as enshrined in the UNCRC during their initiation into democracy (French, 2007). As Tobin (2019) emphasised, “enjoyment of selective adult rights does not equal adulthood”.

Secondly, the purpose of lowering the voting age is to extend the electorate to children, to hear their voices and allowing them to make choices based on their expertise as children. If lowering the voting age were to equal entering adulthood, then the objectives behind it would be lost (Rekker, 2022; Pickard, 2009). Which is to engage with children while they are children and to demand that politicians take the needs and lived experiences of children into account. It is a form of childism to think that only adults can vote, and therefore that children need to become adults to be able to vote.

Thirdly, liberalizing voting regimes and aligning at the same time the voting age with the age of majority could have unintended consequences. If voting is voluntary and based on a child’s developing abilities, it could lead to inconsistent ages of adulthood. Alternatively, if voting were restricted to a certain age below 18, those children who were allowed to vote would be considered adults. In either scenario, children would lose their protected status, as well as their rights to free education, social benefits, and medical services, where these are by law.

Finally, it is not about enfranchising children into adult-shaped and driven processes, but about adapting the processes in a way that children feel included and engaged and are able to vote. We do not need to differentiate between child and adult voters but rather have
a democracy that is open and inclusive enough to accommodate the needs and views of all, including safeguards for those entitled to vote.

“To make public spaces available to young people where they can engage in the political process on their own terms is to offer a place where they can begin to forge their own identity and concerns, free from the dominating influence of adult-centred understandings” (French, 2007).

References

African Union, (1990), The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of The Child, Addis Ababa: African Union.

Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen, (20000, Emerging Adulthood: A Theory of Development from the Late Teens Through the Twenties, in: American Psychologist, Volume 55 (5), p 469 – 480.

Beckman, L. (2009), The Frontiers of Democracy. The right to vote and its limits, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

Breen, C. (2006), Age Discrimination and Children’s Rights: Ensuring Equality and Acknowledging Difference, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Breen, C. (2007), When is a child not a child? Child soldiers in international law, Human Rights Review.

Child Rights Connect (no date), CRC Optional Protocol on free pre-primary and secondary education, Child Participation [online] Available at https://childrightsconnect.org/crc-op-child-participation/.

Child Rights International Network (no date) Countries where under 18s can vote [online] Available at https://crin_voting_ages_compiled_0.pdf.

Council of Europe (no date) Elections [online]. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/elections.

Child Rights International Network (2026), Making (Deliberative) Waves: Reimagining democracy with and for children [online]. Available at: https://home.crin.org/readlistenwatch/stories/making-deliberative-waves-reimagining-democracy-with-and-for-children.

Council of Europe (20.03.2011), Expansion of democracy by lowering the voting age to 16 [online]. Available at https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=13110&lang=en.

Daly, A. (2022), UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 2 and Discrimination on the basis of Childhood: The CRC Paradox, in: Nordic Journal of International Law

Dermody, J., Hanmer-Lloyd, S., Sculion, R. (2008), Young people and voting behaviour: alienated youth and (or) an interested and critical citizenry, in: European Journal of Marketing (2010) 44 (3-4): 421–435.

Eichorn, J. and Bergh, J. (2021) Lowering voting age to 16 in practice: Processes and outcomes compered, Parliamentary Affairs 74, p.507-521.

European Commission (2026), Breaking the cycle of child poverty, Strengthening European Child Guarantee, Publication office of the European Union, Luxemburg.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Right, (2018), [online] Mapping minimum age requirements: Children’s rights and justice.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Right, (2017), [online] Mapping minimum age requirements concerning the rights of the child in the EU.

European Youth Forum (no date), Lower the voting age [online]. Available at https://www.youthforum.org/topics/lower-the-voting-age.

EU Children’s Participation Platform (no date), Children’s Voices in EU Decision-Making [online] Available at https://eu-for-children.europa.eu/childrens-voices_en.

French, R. (2007), Youth Engagement and the age of majority, Murdoch University.

Freeman, Michael D. A. (1997) The Moral Status of Children: Essays on the Rights of the Child, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Gielen, U. P; Roopnarine, J. L. (Ed) (2016), Childhood and adolescence: cross-cultural perspectives and applications, Santa Barbara, California: Praeger.

Hamilton. V, (2024), Rethinking the Age of Majority, in: Redlich. D, Quas. J.A ed, The Oxford Handbook of Developmental Psychology and the Law, chapter 17.

Home Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (2020), Forced Marriage Unit Statistics 2019.

Hills, J. (2017), Good Times, Bad Times (revised edition), Policy Press.

Huijsmans, R. George, S. Gigengack, R. Evers, S.J.T.M, (2024), Introduction. Theorising age and generation in development: A relational approach, in: European Journal of Development Research, 26(2):163-174.

Inclusive Child Participation Networks (2026), Launch of the European Competence Center on Inclusive, Meaningful, and Safe Child Participation [online]. Available at https://www.childparticipationcenter.eu/events/launch-european-competence-center-inclusive-meaningful-and-safe-child-participation.

Irish Government (2025), Young Ireland – Policy Framework. Available at www.gov.ie/en/department-of-children-disability-and-equality/policy-information/young-ireland-policy-framework/.

Judiciary UK (2021) Family Justice Council: 14th Annual Debate – Should the age of majority be reduced to 16? Live-streamed video recording. Available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/family-justice-council-14th-annual-debate-should-the-age-of-majority-be-reduced-to-16-live-streamed-video-recording/.

Kirk, T. (2024) Scots law, 16- and 17-year-olds, and the UNCRC: balancing autonomy and protection, Edinburgh Law Review 28(2), 284-290.

Landsdown, G Vaghri, Z (2022), Definition of a child, Monitoring State Compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, pp 407-412.

Lansdown, G. (2005), The evolving capacities of the child, Geneva: United Nations Children’s Fund.

Lansdown, G. (2010). The realisation of children’s participatory rights: Critical reflections. In B. Percy-Smith & N. Thomas (Eds.), A handbook of children and young people’s participation: Perspectives from theory and practice (pp. 11-23). Routledge.

Neuman, G. L., Ibrahim, A. M. (2023) When is age discrimination human rights violation? In: Harvard Human Rights Journal, 36(2), 223-246.

Pickard, S. (2019). Politics, Protest and Young People: Political Engagement in a Changing World. Palgrave Macmillan.

Pich, C. Pich, C., Harvey, J., Armannsdottir, G., Poorrezaei, M., Illodo, I.B., Kincaid, A (2018). Marketing Brexit: An exploratory study of young voter engagement in relation to the EU referendum, International Journal of Market Research, Volume 60, issue 6, 589-610.

Rekker, R. (2022), Young trendsetters: How young voters fuel electoral volatility,

Electoral Studies, Volume 75.

Ridge, T. (2002). Childhood poverty and social exclusion: From a child’s perspective. Policy press.

Runciman, D. (2021) Votes for children! Why we should lower the voting age to six, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/16/reconstruction-after-covid-votes-for-children-age-six-david-runciman.

Serious Crime Act 2015, available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/contents/enacted (Accessed: 8 February 2026)

Sloam, J. (2014), New Voice, Less Equal: The Civic and Political Engagement of Young People in the United States and Europe, in: Comparative Political Studies, 47(5), 663–688The Law Reform Commission, (1977), Working Paper No. 2, The Law Relating to The Age of Majority, The Age for Marriage and Some Connected Subjects, Dublin.

Tobin, J. (ed), (2019), The UN Convention on the rights of the child: A commentary, Oxford University Press

Tonge, J. Loughran, T. Mycock A, (2021) Voting Age Reform, Political Partisanship and Multi-Level Governance in the UK: The Party Politics of ‘Votes-at-16’, Parliamentary Affairs, Volume 74, Issue 3, Pages 522–541.

United Nations (1948), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations (1966), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations (1991), General guidelines regarding the form and content of initial reports to be submitted by States parties under article 44, paragraph 1 (a), of the Convention: Convention on the Rights of the Child, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations (2000), Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, Geneva: Unite Nations.

United Nations (2003), General Comment No. 4 on Adolescent health and development in the context of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations (2003), General Comment No. 5, General measures of implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations (2007), General comment no. 10 Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations (2009), General comment no. 12 on the right of the child to be heard, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations (2016), General comment No. 20 on the implementation of the rights of the child during adolescence, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations (2006) Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations (2004), Concluding observations of Dominica, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations (2006), Concluding observations of Saudi Arabia, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations (2010), Concluding observations of Sri Lanka, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations (2016), Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations (2019), Concluding observations on the fifth and sixth periodic reports of Belgium, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations (2023), Concluding observations on the combined sixth and seventh periodic reports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations (2022), Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Germany, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations (2022), Concluding observations of Mozambique, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations Children’s Fund, (2007), Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, third edition, Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations Children’s Fund (no date), How many children are there in the world. Available at: https://data.unicef.org/how-many/how-many-children-under-18-are-in-the-world/.

United Nations, (1989), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights General Comment No. 17: Article 24 (Rights of the child), Geneva: United Nations

Voting in elections in Scotland (2025). Available at: https://www.mygov.scot/voting-in-elections-in-scotland.

Wagner, M Johann, D Kritzinger, S (2012), Voting at 16: Turnout and the quality of vote choice, Electoral Studies, Volume 31, Issue 2.

Wall, J. (2021), Give children the vote. On democratising societies, Bloomsbury Academic.

Wall, J. (2024), Children’s Rights and Voting Age Discrimination, Harvard Human Rights Journal, volume 37

Weerman, uit Beijerse, (2020), Age Limits in Law: Between Behavioural Science and Human Rights, in Erasmus Law Review, 13.

World Population Review (no date) Age of majority by country. Available at: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/age-of-majority-by-country.