While about 250,000 child soldiers are still fighting adults’ wars around the world, far from enough is being done to stop the recruitment of more children into armed conflicts. Despite the increased attention that the problem of child soldiers has received over the past two decades, with United Nations (UN) resolutions, thematic conferences and new conventions overlapping each other, the progress made in stopping the use and recruitment of children in armed conflict has seldom moved beyond the realm of doctrine.[1] The acts of recruiting and using children in war have been condemned internationally in writing and saying, while in effect, the number of children involved in armed conflicts has remained more or less the same throughout this time span. Recent activity on one level may, however, provide reasons for new hope: International Criminal Law is slowly turning the call to end impunity for child recruiters into an, albeit partial, reality.
It seems to be a common misconception that Africa is the sole continent on which child soldiers are recruited. The issue is not, however, confined to one geographical area. Many armed groups or forces, whether a terrorist organisation in an Asian country such as Sri Lanka[2], a guerrilla group in Colombia[3], or the war lords controlling parts of the African continent[3]– not to mention many more, including European groups[5]– share the responsibility of what is today a global problem. Tens of thousands of children have had to sacrifice their lives and the lives of others in hostilities, and hundreds of thousands are still struggling today to recover from their traumatic experiences as children forced to fight.
In 1989 the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was adopted, with its article 38 explicitly prohibiting the use and recruitment of children under the age of 15 in armed conflict. Since then, the UN and NGOs all over the world have worked relentlessly to help release recruited children and to stop further recruitment. Numerous measures have been taken to call attention to, and find ways to prevent and repress, the crime of recruiting child soldiers. Among these, the appointment of a UN Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict stands out as, for the first time, a specific post within the UN was instituted with the mission to focus specifically on children affected by, and forced to participate in, armed conflicts. Moreover, on a political level, other noteworthy steps have been taken to protect children from war. The Paris Principles, adopted by 67 States in 2007, is just one example of the strong political commitment pledged by many States to increase their efforts against the use of child soldiers and for the protection of children involved in armed conflict. The Human Rights tools are thus not lacking, although sometimes the willingness on behalf of the States to implement them sometimes is. Moreover, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with the four Geneva Conventions and their two Additional Protocols as main instruments, prohibits the recruitment and use of children under 15 in armed conflict, both for what concerns international and internal ones.
A great complexity of the child soldier problem is that of their criminal and/or moral responsibility. Although often forcibly recruited, the incorruptibility of the child soldier constitutes an intriguing question: Is the child soldier less guilty of the crimes that he/she may have committed than an adult soldier is? More than one author has suggested that child soldiers are to, at least to some extent, be held responsible for the crimes they commit during their participation in war[6]. This would especially be the case where the child concerned has chosen him/herself to join the armed group or forces.[7] Although this way of reasoning can be understood, it could also be argued that children recruited into armed groups, whether by force or voluntarily, are to be seen as mere executors of crimes they would never have committed had they not, on beforehand, been subjected to a crime themselves: that of having been recruited. The responsibility of the child must lie with the child’s commanders and/or recruiters, whereas the concern for the child should focus on rehabilitation. The only way to ensure that children do not participate in war is to not recruit them in the first place[8], and only adults can guarantee the end of this practice. The current evolution of International Criminal Law and the work of international courts are, in this respect, of pivotal importance as International Criminal Justice may prove to be the most efficient way to punish those who have already committed the crime, and to deter those who could commit it in the future.
For years the UN has talked about the importance of ending impunity[9] and with the idea of individual responsibility for international crimes growing stronger, and the crime of enlisting and using children in armed conflict representing a war crime[10] , this could finally become a reality. In the summer of 2007, the Special Court for Sierra Leone became the first international court[11] to hand down a sentence against persons accused of having recruited and used children under the age of 15 years into the Sierra Leonean civil war, which lasted from 1991 till 2002[12]. D.R.Congo warlord Thomas Lubanga’s trial is currently proceeding at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague[13]. Lubanga is accused of, among other war crimes, having conscripted and enlisted children under the age of 15 in the, still ongoing, D.R.C civil war. Solutions cannot always, however, be found in the international courts. States also have a responsibility to deal with this problem on a national level, by criminalising the act of recruiting children, and by advancing judicial action against those who commit this crime. Not to be neglected either, are extra judicial solutions that can consist for example of political pressure and commercial sanctions, adopted either by the UN Security Council (UNSC)[14] , who put the issue of children and armed conflict on its permanent agenda in 1998, or by States directly.
There is, today, a strong theoretical consensus against the use of child soldiers, with almost two thirds of all states having ratified the Optional Protocol to the CRC on the involvement of children in armed conflict. Unfortunately, this is not yet reflected in practice, and the number of children participating in hostilities remains acutely high, while their recruiters remain free and unpunished. However, as progress in the field of International Criminal Law is proving, change is still possible. If the gap between theory and practice can be overcome, then perhaps we will see a world in which children and war are no longer linked together.
[1] Some examples of this: The UN Security Council adopted seven resolutions between 1999 and 2009, in 2000 the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on Children and Armed Conflict was adopted, and in 2007 the Paris Principles and Commitments adopted after an international conference in Paris with 67 participating States.
[2] The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) have been described as a terrorist organisation both by the Council of the European Union and by the UN Human Rights Council. See: Human Rights Council Resolution S-11/1, 26 May 2009 and: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/05/eu-urges-sri-lanka-war-crimes.php
With regard to Armed Forces recruiting children, Myanmar represents one of the most serious situations today. For some information see: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=nw20080130092002477C977684&set_id=1
[3] Fuerzas Armadas para la Resistencia Colombiana (FARC) and Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN)
[4] In countries such as Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo and, earlier, Sierra Leone.
[5] The UN General Assembly documents A/58/328 from 2003 and A/60/335 from 2005 mention Chechnya and Northern Ireland as two of the countries that the Special Representative for children in armed conflict visited during his mandate.
[6] See for example David M. Rosen, Armies of the Young: Child Soldiers in War and Terrorism, New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, c2005.
[7] The term voluntary recruitment has been highly debated. According to UNICEF it should not be employed, as the choice that the child makes to join an armed group is so linked to his/her socio-economic situation, which rarely leaves the child any true choice at all, but rather represents a struggle to assure one’s survival.
[8] Jo Becker, “New ban on child soldiers”, in Monitor, Volume 13, No 2, May 2000
[9] See for example the reports of the UN Secretary General on children and armed conflict, or the reports by the Special Representative for children and armed conflict, which can be found on www.un.org.
[10] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998. Article 8(2)(b)(xxvi) and 8(2)(e)(vii)
[11] Note that the Special Court for Sierra Leone is a hybrid court, applying both international and Sierra Leonean law. For simplicity it is here mentioned among the international courts.
[12] In the case against the AFRC, the sentence was handed down on June 20th, 2007, and the case against the CDF, the sentence was handed down on August 2nd, 2007. For info, see: www.sc-sl.org
[13] For more info, see: www.icc-cpi.int
[14] In resolution 1379(2001) the UNSC urged member states to end impunity, and consider legal, political, diplomatic, financial and material measures to ensure respect for norms of child protection, and in resolution 1539(2004) the Council introduced the possibility of targeted and graduated measures against those who refuse to cooperate.
Susanna Greijer