The military use of children refers to children being placed in harm's way

in military actions, in order to protect a location or provide propaganda. This is

sometimes referred to as child sacrifice, though not equivalent to the religious

variety. It may also refer to the use of children as child soldiers or

saboteurs.

Red Hand Day on February 12 is an annual commemoration day to draw

public attention to the practice of using children as soldiers in wars and armed

conflicts.

Contents [hide]]1 History

2 International law

2.1 International human rights law

2.2 International humanitarian law

2.3 International labor law

3 Child soldiers in the world today

3.1 Uses of child soldiers

3.2 Africa

3.3 Asia

3.3.1 Sri Lanka

3.3.2 Vietnam

3.4 Europe

3.5 Middle East

3.5.1 Iran

3.5.2 Palestinian Territories

3.6 Latin America

4 The military use of children by western

countriesc

4.1 United Kingdom

4.2 United States

5 Movement to stop military use of children

6 See also

7 External links

[edit]History

Illustrative bas-relief of Greek warrior accompanied by his charioteer. From the pediment of a kouros statue, ca. 490 BC.

Throughout history and in many cultures, children have been extensively

involved in military campaigns even when such practices were supposedly

against cultural morals.

The earliest mentions of minors being involved in wars comes from antiquity.

It was customary for youths in the cultures of the Mediterranean basin to

serve as aides, charioteers and armor bearers to adult warriors. Examples of

this practice can be found in the Bible (such as David's service to King Saul),

in Hittite and Egyptian art, and in Greek mythology (such as the story of

Hercules and Hylas), philosophy and literature. In ancient Greece the practice

was formalized as part of the pederastic educational tradition, and man/boy

couples were considered to make an especially effective fighting force. See

Sacred Band of Thebes

A child soldier in the American Civil War

Also in a practice dating back to antiquity, children were routinely taken on

campaign, together with the rest of a military man's family, as part of the

baggage. This of course exposed them to harm from rearguard attacks, such

as the one at the battle of Agincourt where the retainers and children of the

English army were massacred by the French.

The Romans also made use of youths in war, though it was understood that it

was unwise and cruel to use children in war, and Plutarch implies that

regulations required youths to be at least sixteen years of age.

In medieval Europe, young boys from about twelve years of age were used as

military aides ("squires"), though in theory their role in actual combat was

limited. The so-called Children's Crusade in 1212 recruited thousands of

children as untrained soldiers under the assumption that divine power would

enable them to conquer the enemy, although none of the children actually

entered combat; according to the legend, they were instead sold into slavery.

While most scholars no longer believe that the Children's Crusade consisted

solely, or even mostly of children, it nonetheless exemplifies an era in which

the entire family took part in a war effort.

Polish Boy Scouts fighting in the Warsaw Uprising.

Young boys often took part in battles during early modern warfare and

modern warfare, perhaps most popularly as the ubiquitous "drummer boy" –

the film Waterloo (based on the Battle of Waterloo) graphically depicts French

drummer boys leading Napoleon's initial attack only to be gunned down by

Allied soldiers. During the age of sail, young boys formed part of the crew of

British Royal Navy ships and were responsible for many important tasks

including bringing powder and shot from the ship's magazine to the gun

crews. These children were called Powder Monkeys.

By a law signed by Nicholas I of Russia in 1827, a disproportionate number of

Jewish boys, known as the cantonists, were forced into military training

establishments to serve in the army. The 25-year conscription term officially

commenced at the age of 18, but boys as young as eight were routinely taken

to fulfill the hard quota.

Mexico honors its heroic cadets who died in the battle of Chapultepec (1847).

In World War II, children frequently participated in popular insurrections like

the Warsaw Uprising of 1944 and other anti-fascist resistance movements

across Nazi-occupied Europe.

On the opposite side, Hitler Youth (Hitlerjugend or HJ) was an official

organization in Nazi Germany that trained youth physically and indoctrinated

them with Nazi ideology. By the end of WW2, members of the HJ were taken

into the army at increasingly younger ages. During the Battle of Berlin in 1945

they were a major part of the German defenses.

In some cases, youth organizations were, and still are, militarized in order to

instill discipline in their ranks, sometimes to indoctrinate them with

propaganda and prepare for subsequent military service.

[edit]International law

12 year old ARVN soldier with M-79 grenade launcher, Tan Son Nhut, 1968 (Vietnam War)

[edit]International human rights law

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art. 38, (1989)

proclaimed: "State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that

persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in

hostilities." The Optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed

conflict to the Convention that came into force in 2002 stipulates that its State

Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons below the age of 18 do

not take a direct part in hostilities and that they are not compulsorily recruited into

their armed forces.

The UN Security Council Resolution 1261 "strongly condemns... recruitment

and use of children in armed conflict in violation of international law." (UN

Sec. Council Res. 1261 (1999), art. 3, 8, 13.)

[edit]International humanitarian law

According to the Additional Protocol I and Protocol II to the Geneva

Conventions, adopted in 1977, children who have not attained the age of 15

years shall neither be recruited in the armed forces or groups nor allowed to take

part in hostilities. For persons older than 15 but younger than 18 years, the

State Parties to the Geneva Conventions shall endeavour to give priority to

those who are oldest. (Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August

1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts,

June 8, 1977, art. 77; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August

1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed

Conflicts), June 8, 1977, art. 4)

The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the use of any civilian as a shield.

(Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,

Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, art. 28).

[edit]International labor law

Forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict, is one

of the predefined worst forms of child labour in terms of the International Labour

Organisation's Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999, adopted in

1999.

In terms of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Recommendation ratifying

countries should ensure that forced or compulsory recruitment of children for

use in armed conflict is a criminal offence, and also provide for other criminal,

civil or administrative remedies to ensure the effective enforcement of such

national legislation (Article III(12) to (14)).

[edit]Child soldiers in the world today

According to Amnesty International,

“An estimated 300,000 children under the age of eighteen are currently participating in armed conflicts in more than thirty different countries on nearly every continent. While most child

soldiers are in their teens, some are as young as seven years old.

[edit]Uses of child soldiers

Children have been used as spotters, observers, message-carriers, and even

as human shields. The last case is particularly problematic: if the hostage

value of the child is respected, children will be increasingly used as human

shields, and the soldier is placed at a tactical disadvantage. If not, soldiers

must suffer the morale effects of wounding and killing children in self-defense.

In any case, a great deal of propaganda value can be gained from publicizing

different (and often false) accounts of such events. Usually, girls are made to

perform as sex slaves and aides, while boys' fate is combat, although recent

reports indicate that girls have been forced to perform combat as well, and

that boys are routinely used for sexual purposes. To counter their reluctance,

the children are dulled by forcing them to commit brutalities and to take drugs

that inhibit guilt and fear. Propaganda, revenge and fear of being left alone

influence children to "voluntarily" stay in the army. Children have been both

participants in and victims of atrocities. The recruitment of children as soldiers

is a practice that has survived into modern times.

[edit]Africa

As of 2004, Africa has the largest number of child soldiers with up to 200,000

believed to be involved in hostilities. Child soldiers are being used in armed

conflict in Burundi, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda,

Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, and Uganda. The Ugandan Lord's Resistance

Army is particularly notorious for its use of child soldiers.

[edit]Asia

In Asia thousands of children are involved in fighting forces in active conflict

and ceasefire situations, although government refusal of access to conflict

zones has made it impossible to document the numbers involved. Myanmar is

unique in the region, as the only country where government armed forces

forcibly recruit and use children between the ages of 12 and 18. Child soldiers

also exist in Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, Laos, Sri Lanka and Philippines,

where they are mainly associated with armed opposition groups, factional or

clan-based groups or groups composed of ethnic or religious minorities.

[edit]

Sri Lanka

Main article: Military use of children in Sri Lanka

In Sri Lanka, thousands of children are believed to be in the ranks of the

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a rebel group banned as a terrorist

organization by a number of countries including the United States, Canada,

India and the European Union.

Since signing a ceasefire agreement in 2001, the latest available UNICEF

figures show that the LTTE has abducted 5,666 children until July 2006,

although the organization speculates that only about a third of such cases are

reported to them. Sri Lankan soldiers nicknamed one unit the Baby Battalion,

due to the number of children in it. In response to widespread international

condemnation of alleged children recruitment practices, the LTTE had

enacted laws (taking effect in Oct. 2006) to make children recruitment illegal

in its territory. [1].

More recently, the para-military group known as the Karuna Group, which is

apparently pro-government splinter group from the LTTE, has been held

responsible for the abduction of children according to UNICEF and Human

Rights Watch. [2] [3]

[edit]

Vietnam

Main article: Vietnam War

During the Vietnam War, American soldiers reported (and US military sources

documented) a number of incidents where Vietnamese children were given

hand grenades and/or explosives and used as weapons against American

troops. In one variation, a young girl is instructed to throw a hand grenade

(with or without pulling the pin to activate it first, depending on whether direct

or psychological casualties are intended.) In another variation, children had

explosives strapped to their bodies and were encouraged to mingle with

American soldiers, with detonation either by a mechanical device or by

remote control. The frequency of such incidents, and whether deadly force

was necessary as often as it was actually used, is hotly debated; critics claim

the military cited such incidents to justify use of deadly force against children.

[edit]Europe

In Europe under-18s are believed to be involved in a range of armed groups

in the Chechen Republic of Russia, although the numbers are impossible to

establish given a virtual ban on media and human rights organizations from

operating in the region.[1]

[edit]Middle East

In the Middle East child soldiers are reportedly used in Iran, Iraq, Israel (in the

Palestinian Territories), and in tribal groups in Yemen.

[edit]

Iran

During the later stages of the Iran-Iraq War, both sides were accused of using

teenaged children to fill out the ranks of soldiers depleted by years of warfare.

During that war, Iran was accused of using children to clear minefields by

having them run or bicycle through the fields. [citation needed]

[edit]

Palestinian Territories

Child soldiers have also been used in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

According to the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers' "2004 Global

Report on the Use of Child Soldiers", [4] there were at least nine documented

suicide attacks involving Palestinian minors between October 2000 and

March 2004: "There was no evidence of systematic recruitment of children by

Palestinian armed groups. However, children are used as messengers and

couriers, and in some cases as fighters and suicide bombers in attacks on

Israeli soldiers and civilians. All the main political groups involve children in

this way, including Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the

Liberation of Palestine." [5]. According to Israeli security forces, there have

been 229 cases of minors involved in militant activity.

Arab journalist Huda Al-Hussein wrote in the London newspaper Al-Sharq Al-

Awsat: "While UN organizations save child-soldiers, especially in Africa, from

the control of militia leaders who hurl them into the furnace of gang-fighting,

some Palestinian leaders… consciously issue orders with the purpose of

ending their childhood, even if it means their last breath." (Oct. 27, 2000,

translated by MEMRI, Arab Journalist Decries Palestinian Child-Soldiers Special

Dispatch 146, Nov. 1, 2000). In an interview with the Kuwaiti newspaper

Azzaman (June 20, 2002), Mahmoud Abbas condemned the practice, saying

that he opposed "that little children go to die", stating that "[i]t is a horrible

thing. At least 40 children in Rafah became cripples after their hands were

blown off by pipe bombs. They received 5 shekels [slightly over $1] to throw

them" (Quoted in the Jordanian newspaper Alrai) [6]

On May 23, 2005, Amnesty International reiterated its calls to Palestinian

armed groups to put an immediate end to the use of children in armed

activities: "Palestinian armed groups must not use children under any

circumstances to carry out armed attacks or to transport weapons or other

material." [7]

[edit]Latin America

In Latin America, more than 11,000 children are estimated to be involved with

left-wing guerrilla groups and right-wing paramilitaries in Colombia. According

to Human Rights Watch, "Approximately 80 percent of child combatants in

Colombia belong to one of the two left-wing guerrilla groups, the FARC or

ELN. The remainder fights in paramilitary ranks." [8]

[edit]The military use of children by western countries

[edit]United Kingdom

The minimum age to join the British Army is 16 and a half; parental

permission is required for those under the age of 18. Soldiers are not allowed

to take part in Operations until the age of 18. Approximately forty percent of

Britain's military forces joined when they were just sixteen or seventeen years

of age. This military service is voluntary, leading some to suggest that the

argument turns on whether a teenager has the free will and clear mind to

consent to join the army. Children's rights advocates claim that children

should not be exposed to the risks of military life even if they appear to be

willing to do so.

[edit]United States

In the United States seventeen-year-olds may join the armed forces, but may

not be deployed in combat situations. The United States military is based on

voluntary recruitment, though minors also must have parental permission to

enlist (or permission of one's legal guardian in the absence of parents). Males

under eighteen years of age are not draft eligible, and females are not eligible

for conscription at any age. The United States military requires all soldiers to

possess a high school diploma or equivalent; this requirement may be waived

for young soldiers for up to 180 days from the date of enlistment. In spirit,

these policies ensure soldier maturity similarly to laws that would explicitly

ban the use of minors in combat. The human rights organization Human

Rights Watch reported:

"The United States has emerged as the most vigorous opponent of

establishing eighteen as the minimum age for military service, although less

than 3,000 members of its 1.3 million active duty force are minors."[citation

needed]

[edit]Movement to stop military use of children

Recently, a strong international movement has emerged to put an end to the

practice. See, for example, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers.

After the war, bringing children or former child soldiers into civil society is difficult, as they have received little education, are accustomed to the use of

violence, and often the children have lost ties to their families. Human Rights, Humanitarian Law & the Tamil Nation

Child Soldiers and the Law - A Survey [see also Child Soldiers? What Child Soldiers?]

Nadesan Satyendra15 November 2004

"A double standard is no legal standard - and cannot be passed of as such"

The Geneva Conventions Additional Protocols of 1977, imposed a minimum age of 15 for recruitment into the armed forces of a state. The same minimum age applied to recruitment by armed groups. The Geneva Conventions Protocols also required that children under the age of 15 should not be allowed to take part in direct hostilities.Twelve years later in 1989, the International Convention on the Rights of the Child reiterated the 15 year minimum age for recruitment. The Convention bound State Parties and made no reference to armed groups.In 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

provided, inter alia, that the Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes and that a war crime would include 'conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years' into national armed forces or armed groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities. The Sierra Leone Special Court, Appeals Chamber in 2004 took the view that the Rome Statute simply codified that which was already 'customary international law'. In 1999 the Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention was adopted by the International Labour Organisation. The convention provided, inter alia, that each Member which ratifies the Convention shall take immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency. It also provided that 'for the purposes of this Convention', the term 'child' shall apply to all persons under the age of 18 and that the term “the worst forms of child labour” included 'forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict'.In 2002 the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child provided that State Parties may not compulsorily recruit those under 18 years. However, the Optional Protocol retained 15 years as the minimum age for voluntary enlistment. In addition, schools operated by or under the control of the armed forces of the States Parties were excluded from the operation of Article 1 of the Protocol.States may 'advertise and market' their armed forces to 'persuade' those under 18 to enlist. It was reported in 2002 that the US Army spent two years and more than $7-million to develop and implement a free Windows game as a recruiting tool targeted at teenagers. Again "the key objective of the British ARMY Magazine is to encourage teenage boys and girls under the recruitment age of 16 to move from a simple 'interest' in the Army to a position where they actively consider a career." [see also Child Soldiers? What Child Soldiers?]The Optional Protocol however provides a different standard for

armed groups. The Protocol requires that armed groups may not 'under any circumstances', recruit persons under the age of 18 years.Furthermore whilst the Optional Protocol requires that States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that members of their armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities, the Protocol requires of armed groups that they may not 'under any circumstances' use in hostilities, persons under the age of 18 years.The Protocol provision relating to all 'feasible measures' was interpreted by the United Kingdom which ratified the convention in the following manner -"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will take all feasible measures to ensure that members of its armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities.The United Kingdom understands that article 1 of the Optional Protocol would not exclude the deployment of members of its armed forces under the age of 18 to take a direct part in hostilities where: -a) there is a genuine military need to deploy their unit or ship to an area in which hostilities are taking place; andb) by reason of the nature and urgency of the situation:-i) it is not practicable to withdraw such persons before deployment; orii) to do so would undermine the operational effectiveness of their ship or unit, and thereby put at risk the successful completion of the military mission and/or the safety of other personnel."Ofcourse, armed groups (not being parties to the Protocol) do not have the right to 'ratify' the Protocol subject to 'declarations' and or 'reservations.' The short point is that the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 2002 applies a double standard - one for State Parties and another for armed groups. The Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol II, 1977 did not adopt a double

standard. Neither did the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989. Nor for that matter did the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998. It appears that State parties to the Optional Protocol, (after perhaps September 11) have found a common political interest in imposing more stringent conditions on armed groups than the State parties cared to impose on themselves.Several questions arise here. Can State parties by a Treaty amongst themselves impose obligations on 'armed groups' engaged in a struggle for self determination and who reject the jurisdiction of the State which seeks to conquer and rule? Can State parties by a Treaty amongst themselves change that which was recognised as a rule of 'customary international law' by the Sierra Leone Special Court - Appeals Chamber? Has the Optional Protocol which entered into force in 2002, crystallised into customary international law? It appears that the Protocol itself recognises that the terms in relation to armed groups are not 'directly applicable' and required that 'States Parties shall take all feasible measures to prevent such recruitment and use, including the adoption of legal measures necessary to prohibit and criminalize such practices.' The Optional Protocol casts the responsibility to enforce the terms in relation to armed groups on the State Parties.There is also a further and important matter that must be addressed.The obligations which the State Parties to the Optional Protocol have sought to impose on armed groups breaches the fundamental principle of equality before the law enshrined in all Human Rights instruments. Like has not been treated alike. A double standard is no legal standard - and cannot be passed of as such. Here, the comments of the International Red Cross in its Introduction to the Optional Protocol are not without relevance -"..The ICRC welcomes the fact that the issue of non-state actors has been included in the Optional Protocol, but regrets that the provision imposes a moral, as opposed to a legal obligation. Although Article 4 also provides for criminal prosecution under domestic law, this is likely to be of limited effect, because those

who take up arms against the lawful Government of a country already expose themselves to the most severe penalties of domestic law, and because the capacity of a Government to enforce its laws is often very limited in situations of non-international armed conflicts. Third, it is uncertain whether non-state actors will feel bound by a norm which is different from that imposed on States, and thus whether it will be respected..."ICRC was right to point out that the Optional Protocol 'imposes a moral, as opposed to a legal obligation' on armed groups. However, the morality of the obligation itself is called in question by the double standard employed by the Optional Protocol.It appears that therefore that the current situation in international law in relation to child soldiers may be summarised as follows:1. Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years' into national armed forces or armed groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities is a war crime.2. Conscripting or forcibly recruiting children under the age of eighteen years by State Parties or armed groups is a breach of the Optional Protocol to Child Convention.3. All feasible measures shall be taken by State parties to ensure that members of their armed forces under the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities and failure to take such 'feasible' measures is a breach of the Optional Protocol to Child Convention.4. Enlisting children under the age of 18 years by State Parties is not a breach of international law.5. Enlisting children under the age of 18 years by armed groups is not a breach of the Optional Protocol, (and not by any means a 'war crime') though armed groups may have a 'moral obligation' to avoid doing so, and the Optional Protocol casts the responsibility to enforce the terms in relation to armed groups on the State Party and no one else.Having said that, it may be helpful to remind ourselves of the words of Dr Colin J Harvey, Assistant Director, Human Rights Centre, School of Law, Queen's University of Belfast in September

2000:"International law is political. There is no escape from contestation. Hard lessons indeed for lawyers who wish to escape the indeterminate nature of the political. For those willing to endorse this the opportunities are great. The focus then shifts to inter-disciplinarity and the horizontal networks which function in practice in ways rendered invisible by many standard accounts of law. This of course has important implications for how we conceive of law's role in ethnic conflict. We must abandon the myth that with law we enter the secure, stable and determinate. In reality we are simply engaged in another discursive political practice about how we should live..."

Geneva Conventions - Additional Protocols, 1977

Protocol I - International Armed Conflicts

Article 77 Protection of Children....

77.2. The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years the Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.

77.3. If, in exceptional cases, despite the provisions of paragraph 2, children who have not attained the age of fifteen years take a direct part in hostilities and fall into the power of an adverse Party, they shall continue to benefit from the special protection accorded by this Article, whether or not they are prisoners of war.

Protocol II - Non-International Armed Conflicts

Article 4

4. 3 (c) children who have not attained the age of fifteen years shall neither be recruited in the armed forces or groups nor allowed to take part in hostilities;

(d) the special protection provided by this Article to children who have not attained the age of fifteen years shall remain applicable to them if they take a direct part in hostilities despite the provisions of subparagraph (c) and are captured;

(e) measures shall be taken, if necessary, and whenever possible with the consent of their parents or persons who by law or custom are primarily responsible for their care, to remove children temporarily from the area in which hostilities are taking place to a safer area within the country and ensure that they are accompanied by persons responsible for their safety and well-being.

Note: The Protocol applies to non-international Conflicts. The minimum age for recruitment is 15 years.

Article 38, International Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 -

1. States Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for rules of international humanitarian law applicable to them in armed conflicts which are relevant to the child.

2. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities.

3. States Parties shall refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of fifteen years into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, States Parties shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.

Article 8 of Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998

Article 8.1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as a part of a plan or policy or as part of a largescale commission of such crimes.

Article 8.2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means: ..

8.2.(b)(xxvi) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities...

8.2.(e) (vii) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities; ..

Note: The Rome Statute provided for an independent prosecutor who may initiate investigations and proceedings. 120 countries voted in favour of the statute, 7 against, and there were 21 abstentions. The United States voted against the statute and refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in respect of individuals who may be charged with crimes against humanity. It also questioned the right of the Court to act independently of the United Nations Security Council. The US was clearly concerned to control and 'manage' through the exercise of

its veto power in the Security Council. That India and China joined the United States in opposing the Rome Statute reflects, perhaps, the shared interests of aspiring world powers. These shared interests are apparent in the explanations given by each of these countries for their vote. It is also not without significance that Sri Lanka abstained. The stated reason for the abstention was that the 'crime of terrorism' was not included in the Statute. But, Sri Lanka (and President Chandrika Kumaratunga) may have been concerned that the statute opened the possibility of prosecutions against individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes.

Articles 1-3 Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention, 1999

Article 1 Each Member which ratifies this Convention shall take immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency. Article 2 For the purposes of this Convention, the term “child” shall apply to all persons under the age of 18.

Article 3

For the purposes of this Convention, the term “the worst forms of child labour” comprises:

all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict; ..Note: The Convention applies to Members who ratify the Convention. The forced or compulsory recruitment of persons under the age of 18 years is prohibited.

Articles 1 - 4 of Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 2002 [see also Declarations and Reservations]

Article 1 States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that members of their armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities. Article 2 States Parties shall ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 18 years are not compulsorily recruited into their armed forces. Article 3 1. States Parties shall raise the minimum age for the voluntary recruitment of persons into their national armed forces from that set out in article 38, paragraph 3, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, taking account of the principles contained in that article and recognizing that under the Convention persons under the age of 18 years are entitled to special protection. 2. Each State Party shall deposit a binding declaration upon ratification of or accession to the present Protocol that sets forth the minimum age at which it will permit voluntary recruitment into its national armed forces and a description of the safeguards it has adopted to ensure that such recruitment is not forced or coerced. 3. States Parties that permit voluntary recruitment into their national armed forces under the age of 18 years shall maintain safeguards to ensure, as a minimum, that: (a) Such recruitment is genuinely voluntary; (b) Such recruitment is carried out with the informed consent of the person's parents or legal guardians; (c) Such persons are fully informed of the duties involved in such military service; (d) Such persons provide reliable proof of age prior to acceptance into national military service. 4. Each State Party may strengthen its declaration at any time by notification to that effect addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall inform all States Parties. Such notification shall take effect on the date on which it is received by the Secretary-General. 5. The requirement to raise the age in paragraph 1 of the present article does not apply

to schools operated by or under the control of the armed forces of the States Parties, in keeping with articles 28 and 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Article 4 1. Armed groups that are distinct from the armed forces of a State should not, under any circumstances, recruit or use in hostilities persons under the age of 18 years. o 2. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to prevent such recruitment and use, including the adoption of legal measures necessary to prohibit and criminalize such practices. 3. The application of the present article shall not affect the legal status of any party to an armed conflict.

Introduction to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 25 May 2000 - International Red CrossProtection of children by International Humanitarian LawPAside from benefiting from the general protection provided to civilians, children are protected by International Humanitarian Law in two ways. First, by being protected from recruitment and participation in hostilities (Art. 77 of Protocol I prohibits recruitment and direct participation in hostilities of children under the age of 15 years, whereas Art 4, 3(c) of Protocol II also prohibits their indirect participation.

The Rome Statute has recognized the recruitment and use of children under the age of 15 years in hostilities as an international crime, both in international and non-international armed conflicts, and second, by a number of specific provisions addressing their particular vulnerabilities.

These provisions, which are contained in the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, include protection from the effects

of hostilities (sanitary zones, evacuation), provision of special care and aid (medicine, food, clothing), protection of personal status, family and community ties (identity, registration, reunification, news), cultural environment, education, or limits to the death penalty. Other provisions specifically regulate the treatment of detained or interned children.Protection in human rights lawPChildren are protected by general human rights instruments. In addition, they are entitled to the protection provided by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which has been ratified by all states in the world, apart from Somalia and the United States of America. The CRC includes in its Article 38 a provision according to which states parties:

undertake to respect and to ensure respect for relevant rules of International Humanitarian Law;ensure that children under 15 do not take a direct part in hostilities;refrain from recruiting those under 15 and give priority to the oldest among those under 18;in accordance with International Humanitarian Law, ensure protection and care of children affected by armed conflict.Article 38 has been subject to considerable criticism, for two reasons. First, because all other provisions protect the child until it has reached the age of 18. Second, because it adds nothing new and could even undermine existing standards contained in IHL (the parts relating to recruitment and participation in hostilities repeat Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which only prohibits direct participation, whereas Protocol II also prohibits indirect participation). The ICRC contributed to the drafting process of this provision, but became involved only at a late stage, so that its possibility to influence the final text was limited.Development of an Optional ProtocolA number of states have for several years sought to develop an Optional Protocol to the CRC that would raise the minimum age for participation in hostilities and for recruitment to 18 years. In line with a 1995 resolution of the Council of Delegates, the ICRC has supported this initiative and participated in the drafting process. It has made its view known in

international forums (through statements at the UN Commission on Human Rights and General Assembly) and participated actively in the UN Working Group established to draft the Optional Protocol.Given that the Working Group has worked by consensus in order to adopt the text, and that there was absence of such because a handful of states opposed the adoption of the 18-years minimum age, there was almost no progress in the Working Group in previous years.

To overcome the stalemate, several NGOs started a campaign aimed at generating enough political pressure to have the Optional Protocol developed outside the UN working group (this strategy was largely inspired by the Land Mines Campaign). The ICRC was not a formal member of the NGO coalition, but supported its work by participating in regional conferences organised by the Coalition, and more generally by sharing its legal expertise and operational experience.

In January 2000, the UN Working Group finally met for substantive negotiations, and successfully concluded the drafting of an agreed text (the compromise position taken by States which previously had opposed consensus may have been motivated by concerns that the NGO campaign might eventually succeed). The agreed text has recently been adopted by the General Assembly in May 2000 and will be open for signature and ratification.Overall, the Optional Protocol represents a clear improvement of existing international law, although the text also contains evident weaknesses. Of particular importance may be highlighted:1."States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that members of their armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities." (Article 1). In the opinion of the ICRC the obligation imposed on States to prevent participation in hostilities should have been made more absolute, and should also have covered indirect participation, which may often be equally dangerous for the children involved.2."States

Parties shall ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 18 years are not compulsorily recruited into their armed forces" (Article 2). This provision is in itself positive, but is considerably weakened by the following provision, which permits voluntary recruitment below the age of 18 years (it imposes the obligation on States to "raise the minimum age in years" for voluntary recruitment from the present age limit of 15 years, and this obligation does not apply to military schools) thus providing a possibility for circumventing the age limits set to recruitment. It is to be hoped that the Committee on the Rights of the Child will compensate for the weaknesses of the text by a strict interpretation, including by emphasising that all the relevant provisions of the Convention apply simultaneously.3."Armed groups, distinct from the armed forces of a State, should not under any circumstances, recruit or use in hostilities persons under the age of 18 years." (Article 4, paragraph 1). The ICRC welcomes the fact that the issue of non-state actors has been included in the Optional Protocol, but regrets that the provision imposes a moral, as opposed to a legal obligation. Although Article 4 also provides for criminal prosecution under domestic law, this is likely to be of limited effect, because those who take up arms against the lawful Government of a country already expose themselves to the most severe penalties of domestic law, and because the capacity of a Government to enforce its laws is often very limited in situations of non-international armed conflicts. Third, it is uncertain whether non-state actors will feel bound by a norm which is different from that imposed on States, and thus whether it will be respected.In its written observations submitted to the UN Secretariat, the ICRC calls on States to ratify the Optional Protocol as soon as this becomes possible and to effectively implement the obligations contained therein. It also reaffirms the willingness of the Movement to continue its work for the non-recruitment and non-participation of children in hostilities, including by identifying children at risk of becoming soldiers, providing them with alternative sources of income and respect, and by raising

awareness in society not to allow children to join armed forces or groups. Child SoldiersUnlike later wars in American history, young people were involved in all aspects of the Civil War, including fighting on the battlefield. William Black, the youngest wounded soldier, was twelve when his left hand and arm were shattered by an exploding shell. An unknown number of soldiers—probably around five percent—were under eighteen, and some were as young as ten. Other boys and girls served as scouts or nurses for the wounded. Yet even those who did not participate in the war itself saw their lives altered by the conflict. During wartime, young people had to grow up quickly, assuming the responsibilities of absent relatives.

Enlisting

In 1861, President Lincoln announced that boys under eighteen could enlist only with their parents’ consent. The next year, he prohibited any enlistment of those under eighteen. But heavy casualties led recruiting officers to look the other way when underaged boys tried to enlist, and thousands participated in the conflict as drummers, messengers, hospital orderlies, and often as fully fledged soldiers. They carried canteens, bandages, and stretchers, and assisted surgeons and nurses. Many young soldiers signed up as drummers, who relayed officers’ commands, signaling reveille, roll call, company drill, and taps. In the heat of battle, many carried orders or assisted with the wounded; at least a few picked up rifles and participated in the fighting.

Their motives for enlisting varied, including patriotism and a desire to escape the boring routine of farm life or an abusive family. A few were jealous of older brothers, and some young Northerners were eager to rid the country of slavery. For some young Confederates, there was a desire to repel northern invaders from their soil. One southern boy made his feelings clear with words colored by irony: “I reather die then be com a Slave to the North.”

Elisha Stockwell of Alma, Wisconsin, was fifteen years old when

he enlisted.

We heard there was going to be a war meeting at our little log school house. I went to the meeting when they called for volunteers, Harrison Maxon (21), Edgar Houghton (16), and myself, put our names down…. My father was there and objected to my going, so they scratched my name out, which humiliated me somewhat. My sister gave me a severe calling down…for exposing my ignorance before the public, and called me a little snotty boy, which raised my anger. I told her, ‘Never mind, I’ll go and show you that am not the little boy you think I am.’

The Captain got me in by lying a little, as I told the recruiting officer I didn’t know just how old I was but thought I was eighteen. He didn’t measure my height, but called me five feet five inches high. I wasn’t that tall two years later when I re-enlisted, but they let it go, so the records show that as my height.

I told her [his sister] I had to go down town. She said, “Hurry back, for dinner will soon be ready.” But I didn’t get back for two years.

Elisha Stockwell, quoted in Jim Murphy, The Boys’ War, 13, 14

Drilling

The Union Army was unprepared for a major war, as some young soldiers quickly discovered.

There was considerable delay in issuing us clothing and equipment. It was not until the second week of [1861] that we were issued wooden guns, wooden swords and cornstalks with which to drill and mount guard. We went to parade in our shirts, still not being fully uniformed.

Thomas Galwey of the Eighth Ohio Regiment, quoted in Emmy E. Werner, Reluctant Witnesses, 12

Marching

Excitement over enlistment swiftly gave way to the boring routines of camp life and marches.

Day after day and night after night did we tramp along the rough and dusty roads ‘neath the most broiling sun with which the month of August ever afflicted a soldier; thro’ rivers and their rocky valleys, over mountains—on, on, scarcely stopping to gather the green corn from the fields to serve us for rations…. During these marches the men are sometimes unrecognizable on account of the thick coverings of dust which settle upon their hair, eye-brows and beard, filling likewise the mouth, nose, eyes, and ears.

Sixteen-year-old Confederate soldier John Delhaney, quoted in Murphy, Boys’ War, 27

Fighting

Young soldiers’ romantic illusions about military glory evaporated under the harsh realities of combat. They suffered hunger, fatigue, and discomfort, and gradually lost their innocence in combat. Every aspect of soldiering comes alive in their letters and diaries: the stench of spoiled meat, the deafening sound of cannons, the sight of maimed bodies, and the randomness and anonymity of death.

As we lay there and the shells were flying over us, my thoughts went back to my home, and I thought what a foolish boy I was to run away to get into such a mess I was in. I would have been glad to have seen my father coming after me.

Elisha Stockwell after the battle of Shiloh in Tennessee in 1862. Quoted in Murphy, Boys’ War, 33

The rains have uncovered many of the shallow graves. Bony knees, long toes, and grinning skulls are to be seen in all directions. In one place I saw a man’s boot protruding from the grave…leaving the skeleton’s toes pointing to a land where there is no war.

Thomas Galwey, quoted in Werner, Reluctant Witnesses, 17

I passed . . . the corpse of a beautiful boy in gray who lay with his blond curls scattered about his face and his hand folded peacefully across his breast. He was clad in a bright and neat uniform, well garnished with gold, which seemed to tell the story of a loving mother and sisters who had sent their household pet to the field of war. His neat little hat lying beside him bore the num¬ber of a Georgia regiment .... He was about my age .... At the sight of the poor boy's corpse, I burst into a reg¬ular boo hoo and started on.

John A. Cockerill, 16, Union regimental musician, at Pittsburg Landing, Mississippi, April 1862, quoted in Emmy E. Werner, Reluctant Witnesses, 25

. . . I was certainly scared. One shell had exploded near enough so that I could realize its effects, and the one thing I wanted was to get where no more shells could burst around me. This patriotic hero who had declared in front of campfires how he had longed for gorewould have liked to be tucked up once more in his lit¬tle trundle bed. Bomb ague is a real disease and I had caught it.There was no question of getting back to the reg¬iment .... I could see that my division was preparing to march, and while I did not actually run I certainly walked fast to get to it. It is curious how little annoy¬ances will keep themselves prominent even in time of danger. I had on thick woolen drawers which had somehow broken from the fastening that held them up. It was a warm day and as I hurried up the hill those drawers kept slipping down till they drove me almost distracted, disturbing my

equanimity more than the danger did.

Charles W. Bardeen, a fifteen year old drummer boy with the First Massachusetts Regiment, at Fredericksburg, Virginia, in December, 1862, A Little Fifer's War Diary, 107

Dear Mother,My first battle is over and I saw nearly all of it…. Saturday the hardest fighting was done. I saw the Irish Brigade make three charges. They started with full ranks, and I saw them, in less time than it takes to write this, exposed to a galling fire of shot and shell and almost decimated…. I saw wounded men brought in by the hundred and dead men lying stark on the field, and then I saw our army retreat to the very place they started from, a loss incalculable in men, horses, cannon, small arms, knapsacks, and all the implements of war, and I am discouraged. I came out here sanguine as any one, but I have seen enough, and I am satisfied that we never can whip the South…. Let any one go into the Hospital where I was and see the scenes that I saw….

Charles W. Bardeen, quoted in Werner, Reluctant Witnesses, 36

The sight of hundreds of prostrate men with serious wounds of every description was appaling. Many to relieve their suffering were impatient for their turn upon the amputation tables, around which were pyramids of severed legs and arms…. Many prayed alound, while others shrieked in the agony and throes of death.

Edward W. Spangler, a sixteen year old with the 130 Pennsylvania Regiment, at the battle of Antietam in 1862. Quoted in Werner, Reluctant Witnesses, 32

The horrors of the battlefield were brought vividly before me. I joined a detachment which was collecting the dead for burial.

Sickening at the sights, I made my way with another detachment, which was gathering the wounded, to a log house which had been appropriated for a hospital. Here the scenes were so terrible that I became faint, and making my way to a tree, sat down, the most woebegone twelve year old in America.

Fred Grant, son of then Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant, describing the scene at Vicksburg, Mississippi. Quoted in Murphy, Boys’ War, 78

Life as a Soldier

Young soldiers frequently complained about a lack of equipment, inadequate clothing, and the quality of the food.

After we had been in the field a year or two the call, ‘Fall in for your hard-tack!’ was leisurely responded to by only about a dozen men…. Hard-tack was very hard. This I attributed to its great age, for there was a common belief among the boys that our hard-tack had been baked long before the beginning of the Christian era. This opinion was based upon the fact that the letters “B.C.” were stamped on many, if not, indeed, all the cracker-boxes.

Fifteen year old William Bircher of St. Paul, Minnesota, A Drummer-boy's Diary: Comprising Four Years of Service with the Second Regiment Minnesota

Again we sat down beside [the campfire] for supper. It consisted of hard pilot-bread, raw pork and coffee. The coffee you probably would not recognize in New York. Boiled in an open kettle, and about the color of a brownstone front, it was nevertheless…the only warm thing we had. The pork was frozen, and the water in the canteens solid ice, so we had to hold them over the fire when we wanted a drink. No one had plates or spoons, knives or forks, cups or saucers. We cut off the frozen pork with our pocket

knives, and one tin cup from which each took a drink in turn, served the coffee.

Sixteen-year-old Charles Nott of New York, quoted in Murphy, Boys’ War, 48-49

We managed to find four blankets, two of them wet and frozen, and a buffalo skin. The now was scraped away from the windward side of the fire, and the frozen blankets were laid on the ground – a log was rolled up for a wind-break, and the buffalo [skin] spread over the blankets. On this four of us were stretched, and very close and straight we had to lie.

Charles Nott, quoted in Murphy, Boys’ War, 55

We marched through Corinth [Mississippi] in a cold, drizzly rain, and as I didn’t have my blankets, I was wet through. I suffered that night as we had only green wood to make a fire. It stopped raining so I got my clothes partly dried. I lay down on the wet ground to sleep, but would get so cold that I would have to get up and hover over the smoky fire. I put in about the most disagreeable night in my life.

Elisha Stockwell, quoted in Murphy, Boys’ War, 56

Confinement in a Confederate Prison Camp

The accounts of young Union prisoners at Confederate prison camps are especially harrowing. Sixteen-year-old Michael Dougherty was shocked by the sight of “different instruments of torture: stocks, thumb screws, barbed iron collars, shackles, ball and chain. Our prison keepers seemed to handle them with familiarity.” William Smith, a fifteen-year-old soldier in the 14th Illinois Infantry, was shaken by the physical appearance of prisoners at Andersonville in Georgia, a “great mass of gaunt, unnatural-looking beings, soot-begrimes, and clad in filthy trousers.”

Michael Dougherty was the only member of his company to survive imprisonment at Andersonville Prison in Georgia.

No one, except he was there in the prison can form anything like a correct idea of our appearance about this time. We had been in prison nearly five months and our clothing was worn out. A number were entire naked; some would have a ragged shirt and no pants; some had pants and no shirt; another would have shoes and a cap and nothing else. Their flesh was wasted away, leaving the chaffy, weather beaten skin drawn tight over the bones, the hip bones and shoulders standing out. Their faces and exposed parts of their bodies were covered with smoky black soot, from the dense smoke of pitch pine we had hovered over, and our long matted hair was stiff and black with the same substance, which water would have no effect on, and soap was not to be had. I would not attempt to describe the sick and dying, who could now be seen on every side.

Michael Dougherty, who was 16 when he joined the 13th Pennsylvania Cavalry, Diary of a Civil War Hero, p. 43.

SEE WEBSITE http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/c-d/childwar.html