In Hindsight: Moving Towards a Second Era of Application of the Tools of the Children and Armed Conflict Agenda
Through the children and armed conflict agenda, the Council has developed a robust normative framework aimed at protecting children. Diplomats often exhibit a sense of pride in the concrete effects that the agenda has had on the ground, such as the release of more than 200,000 children from armed forces and groups since 1999 through dialogue and advocacy efforts by the UN.
This year, the children and armed conflict agenda commemorates several important milestones. It marks the 20th anniversary of landmark resolution 1612 of 26 July 2005, which established the Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict and the monitoring and reporting mechanism (MRM) on grave violations against children.[1] As well, 25 years have passed since the adoption of the optional protocol to the UN convention on the rights of the child (CRC), the most widely ratified human rights treaty.
This year also marks more sombre milestones. It was the third consecutive year where precipitous increases in violations were documented in the Secretary-General’s annual report on children and armed conflict. His most recent annual report, dated 17 June, records “unprecedented levels” of violence against children in armed conflict situations in 2024, as the UN verified 41,370 grave violations, of which 36,221 were committed in 2024 and 5,149 were committed earlier but verified in 2024. This represents an alarming 25 percent increase compared with the previous reporting period and the highest number recorded since the MRM was established in 2005.
At the annual open debate on children and armed conflict, held on 25 June, many speakers emphasised that the bleak picture painted by the Secretary-General’s report should serve as a call to action to protect children. Guyana, which chaired the meeting as Council president for the month of June, set the tone by expressing hope that the meeting will serve as “an opportunity to not just express outrage but to follow through with tangible action”. This In Hindsight analyses the messages and priorities outlined by Council members and other member states during the open debate. It also analyses the current challenges facing the agenda and makes recommendations for action, based on findings presented in our latest research report, titled “Children and Armed Conflict: Progression, Regression or Maintenance of the Agenda?”.
Annual Debate on Children and Armed Conflict
The annual debate was held under the theme of “Effective strategies to end and prevent grave violations against children”. In line with trends outlined in the Secretary-General’s report, Guyana proposed to focus on ways to address the killing and maiming of children—including from the use of explosive ordnance and explosive weapons in populated areas—and rape and other forms of sexual violence against children.
Many speakers commented that the high numbers of violations illustrate a growing and blatant disregard for international humanitarian law (IHL) by conflict parties. They expressed shock about the 35 percent increase in cases of rape and sexual violence against children compared with the previous year. Many also voiced alarm about the report’s description of a “dramatic” increase in instances of gang rape, which “underlines the systematic use of sexual violence as a deliberate tactic of warfare”.
A cross-regional array of member states—including Council members China, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, and Sierra Leone, as well as member states such as Kazakhstan and Switzerland—called on conflict parties to abide by their obligations under IHL. Some speakers also noted that member states can take concrete action by ratifying relevant treaties, such as the 2022 Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas (EWIPA) and the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (also known as the Ottawa Convention or the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty).
There were also repeated calls for accountability for violations against children, including rape and other forms of sexual violence, in order to combat impunity and prevent their recurrence. Several Council members—including France, Guyana, the Republic of Korea (ROK), Sierra Leone, and Slovenia—mentioned the need for national and international justice mechanisms, including the International Criminal Court (ICC), to scale up investigations and prosecutions of such violations. Other accountability measures referenced by speakers include the annexes to the Secretary-General’s annual report— which list perpetrators who commit grave violations against children and have come to be informally known as “the list of shame”—and designations in Security Council sanctions regimes.[2]
Several speakers called on donors to increase contributions for efforts such as the clearing of explosive ordnance, risk education, and victim assistance. Similar references were made to the need to provide specialised and gender-sensitive services to survivors of sexual violence. Among Security Council members, only the ROK provided concrete examples of contributions it has made in that regard, noting its partnership with UNICEF to deliver mine risk education and victim support in Myanmar as well as contributions to the establishment of multi-sectoral centres that assist survivors of sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
An issue that was on many speakers’ minds is the financing crisis for the UN and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) resulting from funding cuts from traditional donors such as the US and some European countries. Some speakers stressed that cuts made as part of the UN80 initiative—a reform agenda aimed at streamlining the organisation in connection with its 80th anniversary—should not come at the expense of the protection of children. There was also emphasis on the need to support the MRM by facilitating adequate child protection capacities in UN peace operations, including in the context of drawdown or transition of such operations, and in entities such as UNICEF.
Some Council members such as France, as well as member states represented by the Group of Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, emphasised the need to protect the tools developed by the agenda, including by supporting the MRM, calling for the even application of listing criteria in the annexes to the Secretary-General’s annual report, and ensuring the effectiveness of the Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict, including its ability to swiftly adopt conclusions on the Secretary-General’s country-specific reports on children and armed conflict.
Many speakers referenced contexts where the highest numbers of violations were documented in the Secretary-General’s report, namely Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), the DRC, Somalia, Nigeria, and Haiti. Issues that have been highly divisive in the Council sparked some controversial comments. Council member Algeria and the Observer State of Palestine accused the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict (OSRSG CAAC) of not doing enough to address the plight of children in Gaza, with Algeria noting that it had only issued two statements on the matter in the past year and that Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict Virginia Gamba had not visited Gaza since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war in October 2023.
Regarding Ukraine, Russia alleged that the Secretary-General’s report does not adequately reflect violations committed by Ukrainian forces and argued that the forces’ omission from the annexes to the Secretary-General’s annual report reflects an unequal application of the listing criteria. Ukraine, for its part, maintained that the latest annual report provides unverified allegations of child casualties in Russia.
There was a new working methods innovation this year. Guyana proposed that Council members deliver a joint press statement at the stakeout ahead of the open debate. It proposed a draft text with standard language condemning all violations and abuses committed against children and expressing support for the OSRSG CAAC, UNICEF, and other UN entities engaged in child protection. However, divisions emerged during the discussions on the text. One apparent sticking point was Russia’s request to remove references to the Secretary-General’s report, which was unacceptable to several other members. The text eventually retained these references, leading Russia and Somalia to not join the statement. (Russia is listed in the annexes of the Secretary-General’s annual report for attacks on schools and hospitals and the killing of children in Ukraine, whereas the Somali National Army and the Somali Police Force are listed for killing and maiming as well as rape and other forms of sexual violence.) The US also decided not to participate in the statement, in line with its current approach to informal statements on other thematic issues such as women, peace and security (WPS) and climate, peace and security. The joint press statement was finally issued by 12 Council members.[3]
The positions of some Council members at the open debate and the differences that emerged during the negotiations on the joint press statement are indicative of the complex dynamics on this issue and foreshadow some of the challenges that lie ahead in the Council’s engagement on the file.
Options for Action
Our latest research report concludes that the children and armed conflict agenda appears to be both robust and fragile at the same time. Although it has developed strong tools for action, some of them have been under threat. In this regard, it is generally agreed that the annual report of the Secretary-General, which is based on credible information collected by the MRM, and the conclusions adopted by the Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict promote accountability and help compel behavioural change from conflict parties. However, the working group has faced significant challenges to its ability to discharge its mandate, due to difficult Council dynamics that have precluded agreement on conclusions on some country situations, such as Myanmar and Syria. Meanwhile, the MRM is under increasing strain due to existing and prospective cuts that are likely to affect capacities related to monitoring and reporting on grave violations and the protection of children.
In a 2005 report in which he proposed the framework for the MRM, the Secretary-General stated that:
In spite of these advances, the situation for children remains grave and unacceptable on the ground. The international community is now faced with a cruel dichotomy. On the one hand, clear and strong children and armed conflict protection standards and important concrete initiatives, particularly at the international level, have been developed. On the other hand, atrocities against children and impunity for violators continue largely unabated on the ground.
The alarming findings of the Secretary-General’s latest annual report demonstrate the continued relevance of these words, even 20 years later. The Secretary-General argued in his 2005 report that the key to “bridging this gulf” was the implementation of his campaign for the “era of application”, which he had introduced in his 2002 annual report and the Council endorsed in resolution 1460 in 2003. He urged the international community to “redirect its energies from the normative task of the elaboration of standards to the compliance mission of ensuring their application on the ground”.
Creating momentum around a second “era of application” appears crucial in the current environment. This will require political will and financial commitments from those who support the children and armed conflict agenda, both on and off the Council. Several potential areas for action are outlined below.
- Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict- options to address the delays in the adoption of conclusions include:
- Convening an expert-level retreat involving relevant child protection actors, which can look at issues such as how to make conclusions more succinct and fit for purpose. The discussion could yield a “gentlemen’s agreement” that would allow for smoother negotiations;
- Having more sustained attention from the wider Council to the proceedings of the working group, including by raising the issue of stalled negotiations in meetings of political coordinators or under “any other business”; and
- In light of the important role that experts play in the negotiation of conclusions, working group members can demonstrate more political will by ensuring that experts participating in the working group remain in that position for a sustained period of time.
- Support for the MRM- bearing in mind that the MRM cannot be asked to do more with less, member states that wish to support the children and armed conflict agenda can:
- Focus financial contributions to entities that participate in the MRM, such as UNICEF, and can support extra-budgetary funding for additional child protection posts in UN peace operations. To better inform such contributions, an option would be for the UN to produce a list of contexts where there are significant capacity gaps that require additional funding;
- Ensure follow-up in the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee in cases where a UN peace operation is requested to carry out additional tasks relating to the protection of children or when relevant residual capacity is approved following the withdrawal of a UN peace operation from a certain country or area; and
- Council members supportive of children and armed conflict could strive to work together in the Fifth Committee, including with non-Council members, to ensure that child-protection capacities are approved and maintained in relevant budgets.
- Mainstreaming of the children and armed conflict agenda- increasing the integration of the agenda into the Council’s work, including its products and its meetings, can help bring more visibility to issues affecting children and help member states better tailor responses to specific situations. In this regard, the children and armed conflict agenda could benefit from drawing on some elements of the innovations in working methods of other thematic issues. The shared commitments on WPS, for example, apply energy, creativity, consistent engagement, and cross-regional alliances in support of the agenda, both on and off the Council. Options include:
- Holding at least one additional meeting a year, besides the annual open debate, which addresses a cross-cutting issue relating to the children and armed conflict agenda, such as the protection of education or the recruitment and use of children;
- Identifying Council meetings on country-specific or cross-cutting issues that can benefit from a perspective on the situation of children and inviting relevant briefers (such as the Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict or a UNICEF representative);
- Seeking more opportunities to inform sanctions committees about grave violations against children, including through holding joint meetings of relevant sanctions committees and the Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict, a practice last used in July 2019 with the 2127 Central African Republic (CAR) Sanctions Committee;[4] and
- In order to strengthen the sense of prestige, pride, and responsibility in being a member state that champions the protection of conflict-affected children, one or more member states can organise a high-level conference on children and armed conflict that would discuss creative ways to advance the agenda.
[1] The six grave violations, as determined by the Security Council, are child recruitment and use; killing and maiming; abductions; rape and other forms of sexual violence; attacks on schools and hospitals; and the denial of humanitarian access.
[2] With the exception of the denial of humanitarian access, committing any of the other five grave violations could lead to a party being listed in the annexes of the annual report.
[3] For more information, see the post-script to our 24 June What’s in Blue story.
[4] “Special Representatives Deliver Briefings during Joint Informal Consultations of 2127 Sanctions Committee, Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict”, 29 August 2019, https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/press-release/special-representatives-deliver-briefings-during-joint-informal-consultations-of-2127-sanctions-committee-working-group-on-children-and-armed-conflict/.
