Irish Centre for Human Rights Blog

Kirsten Larson, Ph.D. Researcher, Irish Centre for Human Rights, University of Galway

–

Yesterday marked the release of the joint study “Child Trafficking and Armed Conflict,” conducted by the United Nations (UN) Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict (SRSG-CAAC) and the UN Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children (UNSRTIP). This study is being released at a critical moment, as we witness a surge in both internal and cross-border conflicts globally.

As a PhD researcher at the Irish Centre for Human Rights focused on the area of child trafficking in armed conflict, the launch of this study is highly pertinent to my own work. As I began reading the study, several overarching questions guided my thoughts:

1. How do these experts bridge the gap between child trafficking and the six grave violations against children during armed conflict as identified in UN Security Council Resolution 1261 (1999)? S/RES/1261 (1999) was the first resolution on children and armed conflict adopted by the UNSC and strongly condemned the following six grave violations: recruitment and use of children, rape and other forms of sexual violence, killing and maiming of children, attacks on schools and hospitals, abduction of children, denial of humanitarian access.

• What does the exploration of these linkages mean for international law structurally and practically, particularly in terms of peacebuilding, trafficking in persons, child rights, and child protection?

• Where can the international community respond more strongly and specifically on the basis the basis on this joint study?

While my aim is not to summarize the study in its entirety, I will explore these questions and highlight some key insights that have emerged so far.

Bridging the Gap

The study begins by acknowledging the unique aspects relating to children under the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Specifically, the Protocol outlines the definition of child trafficking as follows under Article 3(a):

“the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or a position of vulnerability, or giving or receiving payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include at a minimum the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.”

Importantly, Article 3(c) clarifies that “the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall be considered trafficking in persons even if this does not involve any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a).” Furthermore, Article 3(d) defines a “child” as “any person under eighteen years of age.” This definition underscores that for individuals under 18 years old, the means employed – such as force or coercion – are not necessary for an act to qualify as trafficking.

The study uses this definition to connect the six grave violations against children in armed conflict to child trafficking. It examines each violation and explains how these violations can amount to child trafficking or foster an environment conducive to trafficking or re-trafficking. Importantly, the joint study highlights that trafficking during times of conflict is not confined to one stage or specific group (11). Post-conflict environments continue to create conditions for violations against children perpetrated by “government armed forces, militias, armed groups including those designated by the UN as terrorist groups, families, and corporations” (11).

International Law and Children in Armed Conflict

Although international law has addressed the use of children in armed conflict for decades, this joint study uniquely correlates those laws with trafficking. The study states that “international anti-trafficking, human rights, humanitarian, criminal, and refugee law can all apply concurrently and cumulatively to address conflict-related child trafficking” (23).

It examines various areas of international law and outlines obligations such as non-discrimination (26). While acknowledging that international humanitarian law and international criminal law lack specific provisions in criminalizing child trafficking, it provides examples where prohibited acts may satisfy aspects of trafficking definitions and fall under grave violations (28-29). The study emphasizes the principle enshrined in international human rights law regarding the best interest of the child as articulated in Article 3(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (30).

Going forward

The final sections of the study discuss obstacles to addressing child trafficking and underscore the importance of employing an anti-trafficking framework when addressing children in armed conflict. These sections collectively provide a critical analysis highlighting inadequate protection measures and monitoring systems. The study identifies several obstacles including:

– Absence of stand-alone child trafficking mandates.

– Lack of recognition when reporting on grave violations.

– Gaps in interpretation and application of international law.

– Misperception regarding definitions for children aged 15-18 under various legal frameworks.

– Failure in early identification or referral for assistance.

– Punishment faced by child victims due to their association with armed groups.

– Weak child protection systems prevalent in conflict and post conflict settings (32-35).

These obstacles stress the need for a unified understanding of child trafficking in armed conflict and broader recognition of violations and perpetrators involved.

Additionally, the study highlights that  it is essential to incorporate an anti-trafficking framework when engaging with stakeholders; this includes:

– Full application of non-punishment principles (38).

– Reinforcement that children are victims rather than perpetrators (38).

– Development of systems recognizing child trafficking pre-conflict, during conflict, and post-conflict (37).

– Focus on preventing root causes and ensuring early identification for all children under 18 (37).

The study concludes with 25 recommendations aimed at improving participation from UN systems, parties involved in armed conflicts, and Member States (41). These recommendations are categorized into three main sections:

1. Monitoring documentation verification and reporting on child trafficking linked with grave violations (41).

2. Addressing legal and policy gaps related to accountability for child trafficking (41).

3. Developing protection responses grounded in human rights concerning child trafficking (42).

With these recommendations, the SRSG-CAAC and UNSRTIP provide a comprehensive outline for policy and action going forward. They highlight the uniformity that needs to be met to serve the best interest of the child, including short-term and long-term requirements. Furthermore, this section highlights the importance of strengthening international and domestic laws to enable a human rights-based approach to child trafficking during conflict.

Conclusion

This study is instrumental in acknowledging child trafficking during armed conflict. The connections made with the six grave violations against children provide an expert account along with foundational examples that underscore this crime’s prevalence. Furthermore, this study opens avenues for further investigation into child trafficking issues across conflict settings, including pre-conflict and post-conflict settings. By promoting enhanced data collection, involving multi-stakeholder collaboration, increasing awareness through training programs, and providing a stronger legal framework, recognition of child trafficking in armed conflict may increase­ – leading to more prevention efforts, better protection measures, and potentially greater justice outcomes.