An abject failure mostly, with both the USA and the UK accusing the UN et al with allowing Human Rights abusers as members and wanting out, as the Human Rights Law is 'Unfit for purpose' in the 21stc and empowers only the extremes..
As regards to the rights of the deaf child, omissions of reality are a bit unfair here. Initially, education of the deaf child (Direction), is primarily a parental (Legal), responsibility and dependant on state provision. The issue of choice is also one of human rights, so there is no one deaf size that fits all.
We should be stating it is important a deaf child is enable to communicate as effectively as possible, and those still unable, to have the appropriate support in place.
As to teaching a deaf child how to do that, it also varies child by child. There is still a huge debate on the value of sign appropriation in regards to it being a really viable tool as an adult or an 'in' to other languages. Or, that sufficient language and cultural teaching support exists to make any of it work, with teachers to the deaf pandering to activism demands, and demanding non-curriculum approaches.. again, leaving the deaf child without the same knowledge as their hearing peers get, or the literacy equivelant.
At present emotive campaigns exist based on promoting the deaf cultural membership, which is rooted in sign use, and not as such, enabling the deaf child to have much more than just a singular option to sign to another deaf person using the same mode. It's a policy of perpetual reliance and dependence on others whilst the back up systems of deaf schools and clubs is diminishing as we write and the deaf youth preferring text as a medium.
The idea of educating any child is to assist independence and provide options, deaf education as proposed does neither and may well induce a tiered approach to the deaf child's education creating have or have nots, dependent on sign use, teaching availability, and post/Zip code, we would be back to sending off the deaf child to boarding schools stuck out in a field somewhere to enhance their isolation with some 'back to the future' approach that has already failed....
As stated the expertise with the deaf went with it so would need to be re-trained, and still have to comply with with the inclusion laws which deaf schools don't. Access to the world outside the deaf one requires as many options taught as possible to follow the spoken and written word, whether other deaf agree or not, does not count because this is how the world works. I don't believe the deaf want to wander off to a world of their own. It is restricting the deaf child to one mode with no options but to rely on support for it to work. This is NOT choice or empowerment, and the rights argument is a smoke screen.
There are many alternatives and additional means which may be taught to the deaf child to enable them to use alternatives when sign use fails, but, this is being opposed and the reliance on sign inhibits the will or option for the deaf to attempt anything else, to add to their misery, cultural activism assures them its hearing people's fault not theirs (The activists) for corralling the deaf into a corner.
Children who rely on sign do not seek other options, that is the reality. So it kills access to a large degree by restricting its formats so other means cannot work. It is pretty below the belt, activism of the 'Deaf' variety is using children as a blunt tool to get what THEY want and not, what the deaf child needs to survive a hearing world.