Protection of Children from Recruitment and Use in Armed Conflict: Role of International Legal Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most worrying developments in recent times is the act of recruitment and use of children in armed conflicts. This article examines the law relating to this phenomenon. The relevant law is found in five different treaties: Additional Protocol I; Additional Protocol II; Convention on the Rights of Child (CRC), Optional Protocol to CRC (OPAC); and the Rome Statute. Analysis shows that Additional Protocols I and II, CRC and the Rome Statute protect children, fundamentally by prohibiting the recruitment and use of under 15 children in hostilities, meanwhile the OPAC has raised the recruitment age to 18 years for armed groups. Law also allows the recruitment of children between the ages of 15 to 18, if preference is given to the oldest. It can be reasoned that the under 15 age level allows for a balance between military necessity and humanity whereas the under 18 moves towards humanity. The under 15 age limit is also favorable to armed groups in wars for self-determination while the recruitment of under 18s is preferable from humanitarian perspective. Classifying recruitment as compulsory, voluntary, conscription and enlistment appears irrelevant in the face of new wars. Distinction between direct part and indirect part or active participation is also seen as irrelevant. Law is substantially well structured with potential to inhibit recruitment of children while providing for evolving interpretation. The lack of enforceability is the main concern that needs to be researched and energized.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".