An abolitionist approach to children?s work bans all work; a regulatory approach bans harmful work and regulates other work. I argue for a regulatory approach, using the "least restrictive alternative" test commonly applied in law. I contend, however, that definitions of harmful work must appropriately specific to local contexts and informed by the views of working children. I support this with a case study of a village in Ethiopia, where the current abolitionist approach is overly restrictive. However, a regulatory approach based on international definitions of harmful work would probably not protect children against some harmful work. Children and their parents have a better understanding of which work is harmful, so local definitions ought to be the basis of regulatory legislation.

Keywords: children's work, child labour, hazardous work, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Minimum Age Convention, International Labour Organisation

The final published version of the article is available on the journal website.