Children and Armed Conflict: Vote on a Draft Resolution on Child Protection Capacities in UN Peace Operations*
Tomorrow morning (20 December), the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution highlighting the need to facilitate adequate and sustainable child protection capacities in UN peace operations—that is, peacekeeping operations and special political missions—including in the context of transitions to or from UN missions. Malta, the chair of the Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict, authored the text. The draft resolution is open for co-sponsorship from the wider UN membership. At the time of writing, at least 80 member states have co-sponsored the text.
If adopted, the text will be the Council’s fourteenth resolution on children and armed conflict. The Council last adopted a resolution on this agenda item over three years ago, resolution 2601 of 29 October 2021 on the protection of education in conflict.
Background
Facilitating adequate funding for child protection capacities in UN peace operations has been a long-standing issue. Over the years, Council members have heard from representatives of various UN peace operations and UN offices that child protection posts in UN peace operations are often underfunded.
In the past year, Council members have also increasingly focused on issues related to maintaining capacities related to child protection and monitoring and reporting on violations following the drawdown of UN peace operations. The abrupt closure of the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) in December 2023 and the UN Integrated Transition Mission in Sudan (UNITAMS) in February highlighted the urgency of addressing this issue. Some Council members have also expressed concern about how the withdrawal, since June, of the UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) from the South Kivu province in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) might affect child protection efforts in the area.
The effects of the drawdown of UN peace operations on child protection capacities were highlighted as a trend in the Secretary-General’s most recent annual report on children and armed conflict, dated 3 June, and were subsequently one of the focuses of this year’s annual open debate on children and armed conflict, held on 26 June. Prior to the meeting, some Council members interacted informally with child protection advisers (CPAs), who highlighted the need for sufficient follow-on capacity in transition contexts, including by financing entities such as UNICEF and local civil society organisations that are slated to assume these roles after the UN peace operation departs.
Negotiations on the Draft Resolution
The draft text in blue builds on language from previous resolutions on children and armed conflict, recognising the crucial role of CPAs, including in leading monitoring, prevention, reporting, and dialogue with parties. It reiterates the Council’s intention to continue the inclusion of specific provisions for the protection of children in the mandates of all relevant UN peace operations and calls on the Secretary-General, in cooperation with relevant UN offices, to ensure that the number and roles of CPAs are systematically assessed during the preparation and renewal of each UN peace operation or in the context of transitions.
The draft resolution in blue includes some new language, such as on the need for strengthened coordination mechanisms amongst relevant entities—including the heads of UN peace operations, the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict (OSRSG-CAAC), and relevant government authorities—to ensure the continuity and sustainability of child protection activities, as well as to facilitate the responsible transfer of the mission’s responsibilities on child protection in transition contexts. There is also new text encouraging regional organisations to strengthen child protection capacities in regional and subregional peace support operations, including in transition contexts from UN peace operations.
Malta apparently consulted with several relevant entities in the preparation of the resolution, including the OSRSG-CAAC, the Department of Peace Operations (DPO), UNICEF, and some civil society organisations. It seems that the OSRSG-CAAC, in particular, stressed the need for a Council product addressing child protection capacities in UN peace operations.
The penholder circulated an initial draft of the text to the Council’s permanent members (P5) in late October. It then shared a zero draft incorporating the P5’s inputs with the entire Council on 18 November. One round of negotiations was held on 22 November, after which members submitted comments. The penholder then circulated a first revised draft on 29 November and convened a second round of negotiations on 3 December. Malta circulated a further revised draft on 13 December and placed it under silence procedure until Monday (16 December), which it passed.
Although Council members are generally supportive of the children and armed conflict agenda, the negotiations on the resolution were apparently not easy. It seems that one major issue was language proposed by the penholder that could have incurred budgetary requirements. This included a provision requesting the Secretary-General to ensure that the OSRSG-CAAC has adequate resources to implement its mandate and text requesting the Secretary-General to ensure sustainable implementation of the children and armed conflict mandate, including by ensuring allocation of adequate financial and human resources within all relevant offices and departments. It appears that some permanent members opposed these and other similar provisions, arguing that these are issues that are addressed by other bodies, such as the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee. As a result, these provisions were not retained in the draft resolution in blue.
The draft text is the first children and armed conflict resolution proposed since the Secretary-General listed in the annexes of his 2023 annual report the Russian armed forces and affiliated armed groups for committing attacks on schools and hospitals and the killing of children in Ukraine. Once a party is listed in the Secretary-General’s annexes, a monitoring and reporting mechanism (MRM) is set up in the relevant country to collect data and verify violations against children. The Secretary-General’s 2010 annual report states that a party would be de-listed if the UN had verified that it “has ceased commission of all” grave violations for which it was listed. It also says that “[a]s part of the de-listing process, a party to the conflict… is required to enter into dialogue with the United Nations to prepare and implement a concrete, time-bound action plan to cease and prevent grave violations committed against children”. As such, references to the MRM and action plans were apparently contentious areas for Russia during the negotiations.
It seems that Russia sought to remove references to action plans or qualify them by adding the term “where relevant”. Other members were apparently concerned that this qualification weakened previously agreed language on action plans. In an apparent compromise, the draft resolution in blue does not contain any references to action plans.
Russia apparently also suggested adding a provision, based on language from resolution 1998 of 12 July 2011, reiterating that Country Task Forces on Monitoring and Reporting (CTFMRs)—which are responsible for the implementation of the MRM at country level—should consider including in their reports relevant information provided by the concerned governments and stressing the need to ensure that information collected and communicated by the MRM is accurate, objective, reliable, and verifiable. It seems that this proposal was unacceptable to several other members, who felt that it could suggest that the current information collected by the MRM is not accurate and objective. In an apparent compromise, the draft resolution in blue requests the Secretary-General to continue to take the necessary measures to bring the MRM to its full capacity to allow for effective responses to all violations against children and to ensure that information collected and communicated by the mechanism is accurate, objective, reliable, and verifiable.
It seems that the Council’s African members (Algeria, Mozambique, and Sierra Leone) sought to include throughout the text language emphasising the need for cooperation with the concerned governments. (Mozambique is a situation of concern in the children and armed conflict agenda.) Although these requests were accommodated in several instances, a sticking point was adding these references in relation to the transfer of data on child protection capacities in the context of transitions. Several other members stressed that data on violations against children should not be transferred to the concerned government, especially since there are cases where the government is a perpetrator of violations. Therefore, the draft resolution in blue only mentions the need to ensure smooth and responsible transfer of the mission responsibilities on child protection to the UN country team, without specifying transfer of data to the concerned government.
The draft resolution in blue includes language proposed by Slovenia, and supported by several other members, which calls on states to continue to address impunity by strengthening national accountability mechanisms. It seems that some members would have wanted stronger language on accountability, including references to international accountability mechanisms such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), but such proposals were not incorporated. Some permanent members often oppose the inclusion of references to the ICC in Council products. During the negotiations, several members proposed text on issues such as climate change, women, youth, and mental health. These suggestions were opposed by some permanent members and were not included in the draft resolution in blue.
Although the draft resolution in blue does not contain many new elements, some members believe that it sends a strong political message from the Council that could help relevant entities to advocate for adequate child protection capacities, including in the context of transitions. It also appears that some members thought that the timing was appropriate to try to adopt a new product on the children and armed conflict agenda this year, as dynamics in the Council may become more complicated in upcoming years. Among the members who will start their term in 2025, Somalia is on the children and armed conflict agenda and Pakistan is a situation of concern.
_____________________________________________________
Post-script: On 20 December, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2764, highlighting the need to facilitate adequate and sustainable child protection capacities in UN peace operations, including in the context of transitions to or from UN missions. The text was co-sponsored by 111 member states.
