First Reflection
Child Soldiers
Analyze issues within the topic
Issue: Should there be an international minimum age for war crimes or crimes against humanity?
International law roams between the vague to the unclear in terms of the age of criminal responsibility and what, if any punishments should be implemented. Child soldiers are convicted and prosecuted all over the world. However, it is still unclear whether or not children, under the age of 18, who fight, should be held responsible for their actions they commit while fighting. These crimes can range from crimes against humanity to war crimes, both of which are prohibited by International Law.
Even the Holy Grail of human rights laws, the Geneva Conventions, obliges all members of states to act on any breaches of human rights, however, it does not specify the age of criminal responsibility.
International Criminal Court Article 26 prohibits the court from prosecuting anyone under the age of 18; however, in spite of this child soldiers are still trialed and jailed for their actions. For example, child soldiers such as Ishmael Beah from Sierra Leone and Emmanuel Jal from Sudanese were prosecuted and jailed, which really only strengthened the problems these children are facing. Emmanuel Jal was quoted saying: "I didn't have a life as a child. In five years as a fighting boy, what was in my heart was to kill as many Muslims as possible." Children at this age should not have to go through this kind of pain. Not only this, they were only 15 when they were prosecuted which means, in the word of the law, they were still too young for prosecution.
Around the world opinions are mixed whether or not there should be an international age for criminal responsibility. The Children and Justice During and in the Aftermath Conflict report states: “If a child under the age of 15 is considered too young to fight, then he or she must also be considered too young to be held criminally responsible for serious violations of IHL while associated with armed forces or armed groups.”Here we see one side of the story. This report clearly states that child soldiers are far too young to be prosecuted and therefore should not be. However, Radhika Coomaraswamy, the Under Secretary General of the UN believes that: “If minor children who have committed serious war crimes are not prosecuted, this could be an incentive for their commanders to delegate to them the dirtiest orders, aiming at impunity.” Here is the other side of the story and one that cannot be left out of the limelight. The problem is it’s still unclear which side has been taken or which side will be taken.
I personally believe the age of criminal responsibility should be left at 18. Child soldiers are children under the age of 18 and therefore once they reach the age of 18 they are no longer child soldiers but just soldiers, thus they should be prosecuted for any crimes they commit at that age. I do, however, believe there should be a difference in prosecuting child soldiers who have been forced into war and children who have committed murdered without being forced. Take the case of James Bulger. This 3 year old boy was murdered by two boys at an age of 10. They were not forced to murder him but did it just for the ‘hell’ of it. There should be a difference in criminal age responsibility between child soldiers like Ishmael Beah, who was forced into fighting at the age of 13 due to the civil war in Sierra Leone and the two children who committed the vicious murder of James Bulger.
In the Middle East, and in particular Yemen, child soldiers are used frequently. Children as young as 13 and 14 are seen fighting in war. Yemeni law stipulates 18 as the minimum age for recruitment in the army and 18 as also the minimum age of criminal responsibility. However, in this third world, war struck country, laws are rarely followed and as a result children younger than 18 are recruited by the army and also prosecuted. For example, Akram, a nine year old child, who was used as a bomber, was prosecuted for the crimes he committed despite being 9 years younger than the current minimum age of criminal responsibility in Yemen.
I believe an age of minimum criminal responsibility must be implemented. Too many times in the past, present and surely the future children too young have been prosecuted and their future is ruined. The age needs to be implemented now before we see more children, like Akram, being prosecuted at an age which is simply too young. If an age of minimum criminal responsibility is agreed upon there would no more confusion and trialing child soldiers would be far fairer.
Child soldiers are forced into fighting and at their young age it is wrong for them to be prosecuted. The UN and other groups working on child soldiers need to step up their interest in this topic and finally name an age for minimum criminal responsibility. For now, we wait.
International law roams between the vague to the unclear in terms of the age of criminal responsibility and what, if any punishments should be implemented. Child soldiers are convicted and prosecuted all over the world. However, it is still unclear whether or not children, under the age of 18, who fight, should be held responsible for their actions they commit while fighting. These crimes can range from crimes against humanity to war crimes, both of which are prohibited by International Law.
Even the Holy Grail of human rights laws, the Geneva Conventions, obliges all members of states to act on any breaches of human rights, however, it does not specify the age of criminal responsibility.
International Criminal Court Article 26 prohibits the court from prosecuting anyone under the age of 18; however, in spite of this child soldiers are still trialed and jailed for their actions. For example, child soldiers such as Ishmael Beah from Sierra Leone and Emmanuel Jal from Sudanese were prosecuted and jailed, which really only strengthened the problems these children are facing. Emmanuel Jal was quoted saying: "I didn't have a life as a child. In five years as a fighting boy, what was in my heart was to kill as many Muslims as possible." Children at this age should not have to go through this kind of pain. Not only this, they were only 15 when they were prosecuted which means, in the word of the law, they were still too young for prosecution.
Around the world opinions are mixed whether or not there should be an international age for criminal responsibility. The Children and Justice During and in the Aftermath Conflict report states: “If a child under the age of 15 is considered too young to fight, then he or she must also be considered too young to be held criminally responsible for serious violations of IHL while associated with armed forces or armed groups.”Here we see one side of the story. This report clearly states that child soldiers are far too young to be prosecuted and therefore should not be. However, Radhika Coomaraswamy, the Under Secretary General of the UN believes that: “If minor children who have committed serious war crimes are not prosecuted, this could be an incentive for their commanders to delegate to them the dirtiest orders, aiming at impunity.” Here is the other side of the story and one that cannot be left out of the limelight. The problem is it’s still unclear which side has been taken or which side will be taken.
I personally believe the age of criminal responsibility should be left at 18. Child soldiers are children under the age of 18 and therefore once they reach the age of 18 they are no longer child soldiers but just soldiers, thus they should be prosecuted for any crimes they commit at that age. I do, however, believe there should be a difference in prosecuting child soldiers who have been forced into war and children who have committed murdered without being forced. Take the case of James Bulger. This 3 year old boy was murdered by two boys at an age of 10. They were not forced to murder him but did it just for the ‘hell’ of it. There should be a difference in criminal age responsibility between child soldiers like Ishmael Beah, who was forced into fighting at the age of 13 due to the civil war in Sierra Leone and the two children who committed the vicious murder of James Bulger.
In the Middle East, and in particular Yemen, child soldiers are used frequently. Children as young as 13 and 14 are seen fighting in war. Yemeni law stipulates 18 as the minimum age for recruitment in the army and 18 as also the minimum age of criminal responsibility. However, in this third world, war struck country, laws are rarely followed and as a result children younger than 18 are recruited by the army and also prosecuted. For example, Akram, a nine year old child, who was used as a bomber, was prosecuted for the crimes he committed despite being 9 years younger than the current minimum age of criminal responsibility in Yemen.
I believe an age of minimum criminal responsibility must be implemented. Too many times in the past, present and surely the future children too young have been prosecuted and their future is ruined. The age needs to be implemented now before we see more children, like Akram, being prosecuted at an age which is simply too young. If an age of minimum criminal responsibility is agreed upon there would no more confusion and trialing child soldiers would be far fairer.
Child soldiers are forced into fighting and at their young age it is wrong for them to be prosecuted. The UN and other groups working on child soldiers need to step up their interest in this topic and finally name an age for minimum criminal responsibility. For now, we wait.