Source: http://www.worldlii.org/int/journals/ISILYBIHRL/2001/2.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:39:14
Document Index: 725066681

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 13', 'Art. 50', 'Art. 50', 'Art.50', 'Art. 68', 'Art. 77']

Special Protection Of Children During Armed Conflicts Under The Geneva Conventions Regime - [2001] ISILYBIHRL 2
You are here: WorldLII >> Databases >> International >> Journals >> ISILYBIHRL >> 2001 >> [2001] ISILYBIHRL 2
R.K. DIXIT[*]
The main thrust of this article is to examine and evaluate the rules relating to the protection of children[1] among civilians who are perhaps the most vulnerable sections of society that suffer devastating inhuman miseries as a result of armed conflicts.
“Civilians found themselves suddenly treated as criminals, taken to concentration camps or hastily improvised and quite unsuitable depots. For men, women and children, able-bodied or sick, people of all conditions, thrown together in deplorable over-crowding, and deprived of every comfort, such temporary hardship dragged on year after year, while they bore the brunt of indifference, if not of downright hatred and threats. Measures which, to begin with, might have been justified for security reasons, if they had really been temporary, soon became a means of reprisals and retortion, so that the civilian in captivity was a mere pawn in the hands of the detaining power”.[2]
During World War II, the situation was vastly changed for worse. The women participated in hostilities in greater numbers, in World War II, although they did not commonly bear arms. In addition, there were many more civilian victims than in earlier conflicts. Of the 50 million persons killed, it was estimated that 26 million were in the armed forces while 24 million were civilians. Hence the adoption of new legal rules taking such factors into consideration became imperative.[3]Sufferings of children became more glaring and appalling, in particular, the mass migrations, bombing raids and deportations maimed, wounded and separated thousands of children of all ages from their parents. The absence of any means of identifying little ones had disastrous consequences. Thousands of children were irretrievably lost to their own families and thousands of fathers and mothers will always suffer the grief of their loss. One cannot imagine the sufferings of these children who became orphaned at the tender age and never got love and affection.
The Geneva Conventions of 1949 mark a watershed in the codification and development of International Humanitarian Law[4]. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the two Additional Protocols of 1977, popularly called the Geneva Conventions regime, have made significant contributions by laying down rules and principles of international humanitarian law for humanizing and ameliorating the conditions of victims of war which among others include the wounded, the sick and the civilians including children. The Geneva Conventions regime does not out-law the war or make the war illegal. "The essential purpose of these rules is", in the words of Starke, "to reduce or limit the suffering of individuals, and to circumscribe the area within which the savagery of armed conflict is permissible. For this reason, they were sometimes known as the ‘humanitarian law of war’ or the rules of ‘humanitarian warfare’. Indeed, the currently recognised title for these rules is ‘International Humanitarian Law’ as illustrated by the fact that the full name of the Geneva Conference of 1974-77 which adopted ... Protocols I and II in 1977, for the purpose of adding to and updating the Geneva Red Cross Conventions of 1949, was ‘the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts"[5].
A. Fourth Geneva Convention and the Two Additional Protocols
The Diplomatic Conference which met at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949 adopted four Conventions, commonly known as the Geneva Conventions of 1949[6]. The Fourth Geneva Convention Relating to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War deals with the protection of civilians including children. The two Protocols of 1977 which are Additional to the Geneva Conventions reaffirm and supplement the Geneva Conventions. For the sake of brevity the four Geneva Conventions and the two Protocols hereinafter will be referred to as I Gen. Con., II Gen. Con; III Gen. Con., IV Gen. Con. and Prot. I and Prot. II.
B. Special Protection of Children Under Geneva Conventions Regime
It is universally recognised and accepted that children form part of the civilian population and as such enjoy the rights and benefits accorded to the civilian population in addition to the special rights and protection under the Geneva Conventions regime during international armed conflict. Art. 13 of Part II of IV Gen. Con. emphasises this principle in no uncertain terms. Part II contains the rules relating to hospitals and safety zones and localities, protection of wounded and sick, evacuation, protection of civilian hospitals and its staff, land, air and sea transport, consignment of medical supplies, food and clothing, family news etc. Article 13 defines the field of application of Part II by specifying that the provisions of Part II are applicable to the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict i.e., to enemy or other aliens and neutrals as well as to the belligerents’ own nationals without any adverse distinctions based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war. It must be noted that the principle contained in this article calls for liberal and wide interpretation. The list of certain adverse distinctions such as based on race, nationality, religion or political opinion is declaratory but are not limitative in character. The children, as members of civilian population are also protected by these provisions - the very object of which is to alleviate the sufferings caused by international armed conflicts. In non-international armed conflicts, children are protected by the fundamental guarantees relating to the treatment of persons taking no active part in the hostilities, set forth in Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions. Under this article, children have the right to be treated humanely. There should not be any violence to their lives and person or dignity. Protocol II also codifies the principle according to which the civilian population as such as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack[7].
The Fourth Geneva Convention contains a number of articles which provide special protection to children. The events of two world wars, as stated in the beginning, clearly established the need for special protection to children; however nowhere in the Convention this was stated as a principle. Protocol I fills this gap by stating in Article 77 that “children shall be the object of special respect and shall be protected against any form of indecent assault. The Parties to the conflict shall provide them with the care and aid they require, whether because of their age or for any other reason”. Attention is invited to the use of terms ‘shall be object of special respect’, and ‘shall be protected against any form of indecent assault’. The use of the word ‘shall’ makes it a mandatory provision in the form of ‘duty’ and casts an obligation on the parties to carry out the provision in letter and spirit. Further the use of the word ‘special’ denotes the importance and emphasis which the Prot. I places on the protection of children. According to Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (4th ed.) ‘respect’ means politeness or consideration arising from admiration or regard; admiration felt or shown for a person or thing that has good qualities or achievements” . The use of the word ‘special’ before ‘respect’ puts ‘respect’ on much higher plane and makes the protection of children all the more important both in letter and spirit. In the words of Jean Pictet “the word ‘respect’ (respecter) means, according to the Dictionary of the French Academy, “to spare, not to attack (epargner, ne point attaquer) whereas ‘protect’ (proteger) means ‘to come to some one’s defence, to give help and support’. These words make it unlawful to kill, ill-treat or in any way injure — while at the same time they impose an obligation to come to his aid and give him any care of which he stands in need”.[8] This obligation to protect the children admits no derogation unless specifically mentioned.
III.	Protection from effects of war-establishment of hospital and safety zones
“When we study the nature of the psychological suffering of the child who is a victim of the war, we discover that it is not the facts of war itself - such as bombings, military operations - which have affected him emotionally; his sense of adventure, his interest for destruction and movement can accommodate itself to the worst dangers, and he is not conscious of his peril if he keeps near him his protector who, in his child’s heart, incarnates security, and if, at the same time, he can clasp in his arms some familiar object. It is the repercussion of events on the family affective ties and the separation with his customary framework of life which affect the child, and more than any thing the abrupt separation from his mother”.[9]
The above point inter alia the importance of family for the well being of the child has been emphasized time and again. It has been said that “war acquires comparatively little significance for children so long as it only threatens their lives, disturbs their material comfort or cuts their food rations. It becomes enormously significant the moment it breaks up family and uproots the first emotional attachments of the child within the family group”.[10]
Art. 50 of IV Gen. Con. prescribes that the Occupying Power shall, with the co-operation of the national and local authorities, facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children. This obligation is very general in scope. This is intended to cater to a wide variety of institutions and establishments of a social, educational or medical character which exist under a wide variety of names. All these organisations and institutions which play a very valuable role for the welfare and development of children in normal times becomes increasingly importance in war times. The purpose of this obligation is that these institutions, devoted to the care and education of children, must continue to work even in times of armed conflict. The occupying authorities are bound not only to avoid interfering with their activities, but also to support them actively and even encourage them if the authorities of the country fail in their duty. Consequently, the occupying power must refrain from requisitioning staff, premises or equipment of these institutions and must give people, who are responsible for children, facilities for communicating freely with the occupation authorities. When their resources are inadequate, the occupying Power must ensure that the persons concerned receive food, medical supplies and other things which are needed to enable them to carry out their task. It is in this sense that the expression ‘proper working’ of children’s institutions should be understood.[11]
It may be noted that the age limit of fifteen has been chosen because from that age onwards, it is believed, a child’s faculties generally reach a stage of development at which there is no longer the same necessity for special measures. The benefit of this rule is available to those children who have been orphaned or separated from their families as a result of war. The maintenance of these children would mean their feeding, clothing, accommodation and care for their health including medical treatment. Jean Pictet is of the view that “in carrying out this task the parties to the conflict are to give the children the benefit of existing social legislation supplemented, where necessary, by new provisions. They are to ensure that any child who has been found abandoned is entrusted as soon as possible to the tender care of a friend or, when there is no such person, ensure that he is placed in a crèche, children’s home or infant’s home”.[12]
Education of orphaned and separated children is very important for the proper upbringing and future better life of these children. The idea of education must be understood in its broadest sense as including moral and physical education and religious instruction. This task, as far as possible, be entrusted to persons of the same cultural tradition to which the children belong. It should exclude any religious or political propaganda designed to wean away children from their natural milieu (Article 24 of IV, Gen.Con.). It has already been mentioned earlier, that the occupying power has the duty to facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children in the occupied territory. It is further laid down in Art. 50 of IV Gen.Con. that should the local institutions be inadequate for the purpose, the occupying power shall make arrangements for the maintenance and education of orphaned or separated children, if possible by persons of their own nationality, language and religion.[13] The use of term ‘persons of their own nationality, language and religion’ in Art.50 should not be understood to mean differently than ‘cultural tradition’, rather they are complimentary and must be understood to convey the same meaning.
XII.	Official Information Bureau (OIB) And Central Information Agency (CIA)
XIV.	Penal and Disciplinary Sanction and Release of Interned Child
Question of imposing death penalty on children has been engaging the attention of all civil societies over the world. The Diplomatic Conferences which concluded the Geneva Conventions regime also deliberated on this subject and came out with the prescription making eighteen years the absolute age limit below which the death penalty may not be pronounced even if all the other conditions which make that penalty applicable are present. (Art. 68 of IV Gen. Con.) This provision corresponds to similar provisions in the penal code of many countries, and is based on the idea that a person who has not reached the age of eighteen years is not fully capable of sound judgement, does not always realize the significance of his actions and often acts under the influence of others, if not under constraint.[14]
A close examination of the various articles of IV Gen. Con. shows that Articles 14, (relating to establishment of hospital and safety zones), 23 (consignment of relief supplies), 24, 38,50 (measures relating to child welfare), 89 (food and clothing) lay down the age of ‘below 15 years’ prescribing preferential treatment for children. Jean Pictet states that “international usage has now settled on an age limit of fifteen years as defining what is meant by “children” when no further description is given”.[15]
The difference in the wordings i.e. ‘shall take all feasible measures’ ‘shall refrain’ and ‘shall endeavour’ should not make difference in the application of these measures. It only denotes the degree of obligation, if accusations are made against a party to the conflict for violating the measures. ‘The governments which negotiated this article adopted the wording finally used to avoid entering into absolute obligations with regard to the voluntary participation of children in hostilities’.[16] The word ‘recruitment’ would cover both compulsory and voluntary enrolment. The parties must refrain from enrolling children under fifteen years of age even if they volunteer to join armed forces. The threshold age of recruitment for children has been raised to fifteen years and that too with a rider that preference in recruitment should be given to older children. It transpires that during the negotiation of this provision one delegation had proposed that the limit on non-recruitment should be raised from fifteen to eighteen years. The majority of the delegates were opposed to extending the prohibition of recruitment beyond fifteen years, but in order to take this proposal into account it was provided that in the case of recruitment of persons between fifteen and eighteen years, priority should be given to the oldest.[17] According to Maria Teresa Dutli “It is this recommendation, that enables ICRC to impress upon Parties to a conflict the importance, on humanitarian grounds, of not allowing adolescents under eighteen to participate in hostilities, thus increasing the protection afforded to them. Naturally, the ICRC is also continually reminding belligerents that international humanitarian law prohibits both the recruitment of children under 15 years of age and the acceptance of their voluntary enrolment and calls on states to take all feasible measures to ensure that children do not take a direct part in hostilities”.[18]
The question arises, what happens if inspite of the above provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 77 of Prot. I, children who have not attained the age of fifteen years are captured taking a direct part in hostilities. To take care of such cases, paragraph 3 of Art. 77 of Prot. I prescribes that in such exceptional cases, the children under fifteen years shall continue to benefit from the special protection accorded by this article whether or not they are prisoners of war. According to Maria Teresa Dutli, ‘children who participate in hostilities but are not combatants within the meaning of international humanitarian law remain subject to the domestic legislation of the countries of which they are nationals’[19]. If they are captured by the enemy power and come within the category of persons protected by the IV Gen. Con. such children are civilian internees and as such have the right to be reunited with their parents in the same place of internment, to be given physical conditions of internment appropriate to their age and additional food in proportion to their physiological needs, to receive education and be able to have physical exercise etc.[20]
VI.	Minimum Protection in absence of POW status
Combatant children who are prisoners of war must, like all prisoners of war, be repatriated as soon as hostilities cease, except when they are required to face criminal proceedings and their consequences. When the ICRC helps in repatriation at the close of hostilities, it makes every effort to ensure that children are given priority on account of their vulnerability.[21]
(1)	It is universally recognised that ICRC has done a tremendous good work in this regard and commands the highest respect and acceptance among the world community. However it may increase its activity of visits and fact-finding missions in times of conflict and peace in the cause of implementation.
(2)	Conscience of the international community should be aroused through various activities.
(3)	NGO’s and national humanitarian rights commissions should be encouraged to play an effective role through education, dissemination of information and as observers as is happening in the field of observance of human rights, arms control, environment etc.
(4)	International sanctions which affect the children should be prohibited.
(5)	More and more guidelines (standards) for the protection of children may be brought out for guidance and establishing standards.
[*]LL.B., LL.M., (Harvard); S.J.D. (Northwestern) Former Legal Adviser and Joint Secretary and Head (L&T Division), Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India; Deputy Leader of the Indian Delegation to the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts held at Geneva 1974-77; also the Legal Adviser to the Indian Delegation and Chairman of the Legal Committee of the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Viet-Nam, 1966-68 and observed at first hand the sufferings of children and women in Viet-Nam War.
[1]	Ilene Cerne, “The Convention on the Rights of the Child : What it Means for Children in War” International Journal of Refugee Law, vol.3(1991), pp.100-111; Jenny Kuper, International Law Concerning Child Civilians in Armed Conflicts (Clarendon Press, 1997); Mona Macksoud, Helping Children to Cope with the Stresses of War: A Manual for Parents and Teachers (UNICEF,1993); Richman Naomi, Communicating With Children, Helping Children in Distress (Save the Children, 1993); Paul Vlaadringerbroek and Hans Lan Van , Children on the Move : How to Implement Their Right to Family Life (Martinus Nihjhoff, 1996); M Everett Russler, Neil Bothby and Daniel J Steinbock, Unaccompanied Children Care and Protection in Wars, Natural Disasters and Refugee Movements (Oxford University Press, 1996).
[2]	Extract quoted in :Sandra Singer ‘The Protection of Children During Armed Conflict Situations” International Review of the Red Cross, n. 252 (May-June 1986), p. 139.
[3]	See Francoise Krill; “The Protection of Women in International Humanitarian Law”; International Review of the Red Cross, n. 249 (Nov.-Dec. 1985), p. 338.
[4]	Fleck Dieter, The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in International Armed Conflicts (Oxford University Press, 1995); Herczegh Geza, Developments of International Humanitarian Law (Akademiai Kiado, 1984); K.Edward Kwakwa, The International Law of Armed Conflict: Personal and Material Field of Application (Kluwer Publishers, 1995).
[5]	J.G. Starke: Introduction to International Law, p. 553, (10th ed.)
[6]	First Convention : Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field; Second Convention : Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea; Third Convention: Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; Fourth Convention: Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
7.	Denise Plattner : “Protection of Children in Humanitarian Law”, International Review of the Red Cross, n. 240, (May-June 1984) pp. 141-142.
[8]	Jean S. Pictet, Commentary on IV Geneva Convention Relating to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, (1958), p. 134 .
[9]	Report on the Work of the Conference of Government Experts, vol. II, ICRC, (1972), p. 89; quoted in Denise Plattner: Protection of Children in International Humanitarian Law; ICRC, No. 240, p. 144 (May-June, 1984).
[10]	Anna Freud etc: Uprooting and after — 1973 as reported in ISS Seminar on Unaccompanied Minor Refugees in European Resettlement Countries, (Frankfurt, March 1984); Quoted, in Sandra Singer: The Protection of children during armed conflict situations; ICFC, No. 252, p. 143, (May-June 1986).
[11]	See generally note 8, p. 286.
[12]	Ibid, p. 187.
[13]	In Iran-Iraq war, Defence for Children International launched with the permission of Iraqi authorities an education programme in camp for Iranian POWs who were as young as 14 or 15. Teachers were recruited from other Iranian POWs and some Farsi-speaking Iraqis and subjects such as Mathematics, English, Art and Weaving were taught. See Sandra Singer, note 2 p. 150.
[14]	Commentary of the Fourth Geneva Convention, ICRC, Geneva 1958, p. 347.
[15]	Picrerq note 8 p.395
[16]	See, Maria Teresa Dutli: Captured Child Combatants; International Review of the Red Cross, No. 278 (Sept. – Oct. 1990) p.423.
[17]	See Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, p.901
[18]	Dut, note 16, p. 424.
[19]	See Pictet note. 8, p.429; see also Articles 82, 82, 89 & 94 of IV Geneva Convention.
[20]	Ibid., 13 p.424.
[21]	Ibid., p. 430.
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/journals/ISILYBIHRL/2001/2.html