Engaging armed non-State actors on the prohibition of recruiting and using children in hostilities: Some reflections from Geneva Call's experience

Abstract

Despite the existence of a comprehensive international legal framework protecting children in armed conflict, ensuring its respect by armed non-State actors (ANSAs) still remains an important challenge. This can be linked to several circumstances, such as their lack of knowledge of the law, the absence of an incentive to abide by the applicable rules, their fragmented structure and their lack of capacity to implement the applicable framework. Certain practical cases, however, show that ANSAs’ behaviours may vary throughout armed conflicts. While certain groups have, at a given moment, breached some of their international obligations, others have shown some degree of commitment to respecting children's safeguards. When addressing the prohibition of recruiting and using children in hostilities, the reasons behind these variations have remained insufficiently explored. This article reviews some of the lessons learned from Geneva Call's experience when engaging ANSAs towards their compliance with child protection norms.

Promoting the Responsibility to Protect through Non-State Armed Groups: Overcoming the Legal and Regulatory Constraints

“…97 While this approach may appear appealing, the reason behind the Geneva call is that an engagement with the non-state armed groups can advance compliance with humanitarian norms and protect civilians from the dangers of armed conflicts. 98 Aside from the above measures, another measure adopted by non-state armed groups is the adoption of internal regulations to control their members' behavior through administering oaths of allegiance, codes of conduct, standing orders, penal codes, and military manuals. 99…”

Administrative and Judicial Frameworks for Armed Non-State Actors' Law Enforcement and Organizational Structures

“…(Leonardi, 2009) There are much more ANSAS in the world that have authority over certain regions and that administer justice by setting up courts for the general public and revolutionary trials that appeal to the general public's sense of principles. (Pascal Bongard, 2020) The international community is still unsure, nevertheless, whether such organizations or would-be Sovereign rulers are genuinely permitted to carry out these obligations under international law. Since due process is essentially non-existent, the fundamental criticism levelled at these legal systems is that they do not have fair trials.…”

“…The interpretation is one of the reasons why experts disagree on whether these organizations have the right to establish courts, according to an article written by the ICRC. (Pascal Bongard, 2020) The IHL customary rules state: "Courts are those established by the laws that are implemented within a country, therefore when armed organizations take control of their entire existence, it is against the rules laid down by those laws, which is why they are illegal." The conflict is brought on by the fact that many concerns are not addressed by international law.…”