In this paper I investigate the extent to which the issue of early childhood education and care (ECEC) has been "internationalized" to become the focus of attention of a number of international organizations (IOs) including the European Union (EU) 2 the International Labour Organization (ILO), 3 the Organization of American States (OAS), 4 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 5 United Nations (UN) agencies, particularly the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 6 and the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) --through the instrument of the Convention on the Rights of the Child --and the and the World Bank. 7 Through an examination of a number of policy statements and other primary documents published by these organizations, the paper traces the attention these IOs have paid to the issue, as well as how these IOs frame 8 the ECEC policy debate. Building on Mahon's examination of the frames found in OECD (Mahon, 2006; 2008) and World Bank (Mahon, 2009) policy documents, this paper finds that these IOs' policy recommendations are increasingly dominated by human capital development frames, although there is evidence of three other competing frames: one that rests on more social pedagogic norms that promote a concern for the well being of the "whole child"; another that focuses on children's rights to services and countries' obligations to deliver services; and a fourth that focuses on parental employment concerns and the connection between ECEC policies and programs and gender equality. The paper then examines the justice implications of the frames manifest at the international level and particularly the implications for gender equality of the human capital development frame. 9 The norms underpinning this frame include a belief in the positive relationship between early childhood development (ECD) and early childhood education (ECE) include, for example, European Commission Childcare Network (1990), European Commission Network on Childcare (1996) and others discussed below. 3 Relevant policy documents include, for example, ILO Office of the Director-General (2003), ILO Bureau for Gender Equality (2006). 4 In a plenary session on 16 November 2007, the Ministers of Education of the member states of the OAS adopted a hemispheric commitment to "increase quality early childhood comprehensive care and education policies and processes" (OAS, 2007). 5 Relevant policy documents include OECD (2001, 2006) and the numerous country notes and background reports. 6 See, for example, UN (2007), UN Children's Fund (2001), UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (1989), and UNESCO (2006). 7 Relevant policy documents include Young (2002; 2007). 8 I use the term policy "frame" rather than policy "discourse" to emphasize that paradigmatic views on ECEC policies and programs have not yet been formed. Instead, various actors are using a variety of persuasive devices to "'fix meanings, organize experience, alert others that their interests and possibly their identities are at state, and propose solutions to ongoing problems'" (Payne, 2001, p. 39). I define discourses as "broad systems of communication that link concepts together in a web of relationships through an underlying logic" (Ferree and Merrill, 2000, p. 455). While Schmidt (2008) and others label these frames, they really are amalgamations of frames connected together with a coherent underlying logic. The framing process connotes the process by which "discourses, ideologies, and frames are all connected" (Ferree and Merrill, 2000, p. 456). For a broader discussion of these terms see White (2009). 9 A companion paper by Friendly and White (2009) on the quality implications of ECEC investment in liberal welfare states is in progress.