Should Children recruited by armed forces or armed groups be granted asylum?

“It is unforgivable that children are

assaulted, violated, murdered and yet our conscience is not revolted nor our

sense of dignity challenged. This represents a fundamental crisis of our civi-

lization” (Machel, 1996,

p. 73; 

Exploring the matter of asylum recognition — whether a person or a group should be granted asylum or not — is always a difficult and complex task. Even so, I have decided to take this challenge and write this analysis for many personal and professional reasons but mostly because in all my five years as an undergraduate student in International Relations in two universities of Brazil I heard about asylum and child soldiers once. And the more I read, the less I understand why we are not talking about children in IR undergraduate studies as it involves all the disciplines we study in various ways. For example, IR undergraduate students should have been discussing in Political Economy classes how child labor affects global economy and production chains; in International Law, whether Children’s Rights are guaranteed or not; In Security studies, how children who soldier affects wars; and so on. There are many important themes that we are closing our eyes to and pretending that they don’t exist when we don’t even talk about 27% of the world population- children (WORLD POPULATION REVIEW, 2023). With that said, I aim to shed light into the matter and hopefully inspire the reader to begin their own research about this marginalized theme in International Relations. 

Introduction

The Paris Principles defined child soldiers as: “A child associated with an armed force or armed group refers to any person below 18 years of age who is or who has been recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity” (UNICEF, 2007). By stating the last two words “any capacity” it broadens the definition to incorporate children who don’t soldier but instead are used as fighters, cooks, porters, messengers, spies or for sexual purposes. 

    

Between 2005 and 2020, the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund estimates that more than 93 000 children were recruited by armed forces or groups. Of course, it is believed that the real number is much higher (UNICEF, 2021). Amnesty International has reported many times that children have been subject of torture, punishment in the form of violent beatings, rape, food and sleep deprivation, electric shocks, mutilation, confinement, and execution (STEVENS, 2014). 

Stereotypes involved

Before discussing asylum per se, it is important to discuss the terms in which we talk about these children in specific- which are filled with prejudice and stereotypes. Tabak (2023) and Denov (2010) critically analyze the three narratives that are most used in the world’s media and policy discourse about children who soldier and highlight their impacts in shaping our view and actions towards the matter. 

The most used is by far the narrative that frames children who soldier as the exploited victim. This kind of narrative is dangerous as it can activate the “white savior complex”, the same one that was most seen back in colonial times - although it is still present nowadays- when the Western used this discourse in order to completely delegitimize and enforce their power on African Countries. For example, the terminology “child soldier” is thought to perpetuate the idea that they are only objects of exploitation and not complex political subjects (TABAK, 2023). For this reason, Tabak (2023), uses the term “children who soldier” emphasizing the verb “to soldier” and children as subjects in action. 

The second narrative is clearly the opposite of the first. In this discourse, children who soldier are seen as monsters, not only marginalized but actively demonized (TABAK, 2020) and a threat to society. Lastly, there is the image of “redeemed hero”: children who were able to overcome extreme violence and reintegrate into civilian life (TABAK, 2023). The problem with this narrative is that the children who were less successful in overcoming extremely hostile circumstances are seen as “failed subjects” (BEIER, 2020).

The 1951 Convention and its Article 1f

    Many children who soldier are not able to flee their country. However, there are indeed children who manage to escape and request asylum. The 1951 Convention and its 1967 Additional Protocol are the main instruments regarding asylum recognition in the world.. But for a child who soldier, the lines are blurry.

    For an asylum to be granted, the person must meet the following criteria:

 “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.” (OHCHR, 1951)

Now, imagine a child who soldier escaped from their recruiters to  another country. It is clear that this child has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of belonging to the very specific group of children who soldier. Also, it is unreasonable to expect that this child will not be persecuted if they return to their home country. Nevertheless, there is one thing preventing them from receiving asylum protection: article 1f of the Refugee Convention. After all, the Convention has some exclusion clauses and the article 1f applies directly to child who soldier as it states that: 

“The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that: (a) He has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes; (b) He has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee; (c) He has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations” (OHCHR, 1951).

So the question comes down to whether the child committed violent acts only because they were obligated to it and could not refuse or they should be held responsible for their actions because they chose to act in a violent manner. This is a debate that is not close to the end and it is not the goal of this article to exhaust arguments about it. Therefore, we will see how the courts usually decide upon the matter of whether or not to apply article 1f. 

Generally, the matter of age plays a huge role determining whether the child is a refugee or a criminal (RIKHOF, 2019). For example, only in the Netherlands there are special guidelines which instruct the decision makers not to consider exclusion for child under the age of 15 years old and for the ones between 15 to 18 years old, each case should be analyzed individually by taking into account information about, for example: “the consequences of refusing to join; the duration of employment as a child soldier; the possibility of early disassociation from the organization and/or from personal participation in crimes; the forced use of drugs and/or medication; and promotions for ‘good work’” (RIKHOF, 2019). 

Rikhof (2019) analyzed in his article 36 cases dealing with children who soldier with 25 being in the area of exclusion according to article 1f and 11 of non-exclusion, when the child is recognized as a refugee. There seems to be a trend with respect to non-exclusion jurisprudence that takes into consideration whether the child fits in the criteria of belonging to a social group in the 1951 Convention (Rikhof, 2019). Nevertheless, since there is little cooperation regarding sharing information on inclusion and exclusion jurisprudence between countries, the cases are very specific and there is no understandable pattern. 

Final remarks

As I mentioned in the beginning of the article, it is a complex subject. When we read in NGOs reports the stories of children who soldier, we can feel enraged that society has already failed them to begin with, but keeps failing when they decide that they should not be granted asylum to be even a little protected. On the other hand, violent actions were truly made and since we can never really know if a child who soldier did the things they did intentionally, we risk granting asylum to criminals. I tend to believe more in the first one: the ones who survive, deserve at least to be protected as a refugee. 

.

References

BEIER, Marshall.(2020). Subjects in Peril: Childhoods Between Security and

Resilience. In J. Marshall Beier (Ed.), Discovering Childhood in International

Relations (pp. 219–242). Palgrave Macmillan.

Denov, M. S. (2010). Child Soldiers: Sierra Leone’s Revolutionary United Front.

Cambridge University Press.

Machel, G. (1996). Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Children: Impact of

Armed Confict on Children. Report of Graça Machel, Expert of the Secretary

General of the United Nations, Nova York, A/50/60.

OHCHR. Convention relating to refugees. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-relating-status-refugees. Accessed on on April 8th 2023. 

RIKHOF, Joseph. Child soldiers and asylum–duality or dilemma?. In: Research Handbook on Child Soldiers. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019. p. 390-407.

STEVENS, Amy Jane. The invisible soldiers: understanding how the life experiences of girl child soldiers impacts upon their health and rehabilitation needs. Archives of disease in childhood, v. 99, n. 5, p. 458-462, 2014.

TABAK, Jana. “Children Without Childhood”: Representations of the Child-Soldier as an International Emergency. In: The Politics of Children’s Rights and Representation. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2023. p. 161-180.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-04480-9_7

Tabak, J. (2020). The Child and the World: Child-Soldiers and the Claim for

Progress. University of Georgia Press.

UNICEF. The Paris Principles. Available at: https://www.unicef.org/mali/media/1561/file/ParisPrinciples.pdf. Accessed on April 8th 2023. 

UNICEF. Children recruited by armed forces. 2021. Available at https://www.unicef.org/protection/children-recruited-by-armed-forces. Accessed on April 8th 2023. 

WORLD POPULATION REVIEW. Children in the World by Country 2023. Available at: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/children-in-the-world-by-country. Accessed on April 8th 2023.