För barnets bästa? En kritisk granskning av internationella adoptioners förenlighet med principen om barnets bästa

Sammanfattning: In every legal process regarding children, the principle of best interests of the child must be considered. The principle is well discussed and does not have a universal determined definition. Intercountry adoption is one of the proceedings that must consider the principle. This is stipulated in both national and international law. During the last decades, the prevailing view on intercountry adoptions has been very positive. This essay intends to critically review if intercountry adoptions are compatible with the principle of best interests of the child. The essay is based on interpretation of applicable law and how Swedish and Dutch governments and other participants take part in the procedure. The critical examination is done through the perspective of the Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Makau Mutua’s theory about the metaphor of human rights. The metaphor states that the work with human rights is based on a predetermined conflict between savages and saviours, with victims in between. This study analyzes Sweden’s and Dutch’s own reports about their point of view and proceedings with intercountry adoptions. The Swedish report states that intercountry adoptions to Sweden come with uncertainty and that the rule of law can not be fully met. Despite this, Statskontoret means that adoptions have an important function, that the process should remain and also means to say that adoption is a course of action for Sweden to comply with the Convention of the rights of the child. The Dutch report investigated intercountry adoptions during 1967 to 1998. The report stated systemic deficiencies in the process regarding corruption, false documents, kidnappings and child trafficking. In the report, the responsible committee expresses their considerable doubts if it is possible to ever construct a legal system for intercountry adoptions, which is compatible with the principle of best interests of the child. The general view on intercountry adoption as a rescue operation has built a very narrow perspective. The analysis shows how the principle of best interests of the child loses its meaning, when unlawful, corrupt and wrongful adoptions are legitimized with the argument that the child is at least rescued. The adoptive parents' interests are prioritized, which is hidden behind the predetermined scenario that the child needs to be saved to get a better life. In conclusion, due to the current process regarding intercountry adoptions it is hard to state that the adoptions are compatible with the principle of the best interests of the child. There is a notion that non-European states cannot take care of their vulnerable children. This, combined with the Western world's seemingly unwavering view of adoption as a rescue operation, enables a lack of legal certainty, corruption and a neglected child rights perspective.