The Principle of Subsidiarity in the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption: A Philosophical Analysis

For decades there has been debate about where ICA would appear in the prior-
ity list after domestic adoption. The CRC appears to rank all domestic alternatives,

including foster care and possibly institutional care, ahead of ICA. For example,

Article (b) of the CRC indicates that states “recognize that inter-country adop-
tion may be considered as an alternative means of child’s care, if the child cannot

be placed in a foster or an adoptive family or cannot in any suitable manner be
cared for in the child’s country of origin.”

 The wording here holds open the pos-
sibility of a “suitable” caring situation in-country other than foster or adoption.

Institutional care, group homes providing family-like care, orphanages, or even
orphan villages might reasonably be thought to fulfill the CRC’s specification

for suitable care. Note also that foster care is not a permanent family. This ambi-
guity regarding the placement priority vividly illustrates what is at stake in

attempts to make sense of subsidiarity. There is evident disagreement at this

stage about how to prioritize in-country institutional care and ICA. This confu-
sion seems to have played a part in the restrictions and even halting of ICA in

some countries. And, in addition to genuine confusion, there are also opposing
political and ethical worldviews about children’s rights.