Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conclusions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The War Crime of Child Soldier Recruitment

  • 1692 Accesses

Abstract

The final chapter provides a summary of the conclusions reached, and offers final thoughts on a number of ancillary issues. These include the issue of child witness testimony. Studies have shown that children are significantly less capable than adults of retaining memories, which has profound consequences for the reliability of their testimony. In addition, the danger of incurring further trauma by reliving painful experiences in an unfamiliar courtroom setting, combined with the personal risk often involved in testifying, renders the process incredibly sensitive. The Special Court for Sierra Leone and the International Criminal Court have responded to these concerns in differing ways, which are outlined and assessed. The tripartite role played by civil society in the crime development is also discussed. International NGOs lobbied hard for children’s rights during the drafting of the human rights framework and the Rome Statute; acted as a source of valuable evidence for the judgements and decisions undertaken by the two tribunals and exercised ‘considerable moral authority’ in promoting the rights of those accused of war crimes. The chapter concludes with an assessment of the potential deterrent capacity of criminalisation of international law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See pages 179–181; 198–201; 250–252 and 279–282.

  2. 2.

    Scouting and acting as a decoy constitute active participation while domestic chores do not: AFRC Trial Judgement (n 7 below) [737], Prosecutor v Issa Hassan Sesay, Morris Kallon and Augustine Gbao (“The RUF Case”) (Judgement) SCSL-04-15-T SCSL (2 March 2009) [514].

  3. 3.

    The Special Court found that ‘finding food’ constitued active participation, while the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber ruled that ‘food delivery’ was not: Lubanga Confirmation of Charges (n 5 below) [262]; Prosecutor v Moinina Fofana and Allieu Kondewa (“The CDF Case”) (Judgement) SCSL-04-14-T (2 August 2007) [193] [Hereafter ‘CDF Trial Judgement’].

  4. 4.

    Amicus curiae brief of the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict submitted to the ICC in application of Rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, pursuant to the Decision Inviting Observations from the Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations for Children and Armed Conflict, of Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (18 February 2008) [20–21].

  5. 5.

    The Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Décision sur la confirmation des charges) ICC-01/04-01106 (29 January 2007) [359].

  6. 6.

    Cassese 2007, p. 110.

  7. 7.

    Prosecutor v Alex Tamba Brima, Brima Bazzy Kamara and Santigie Borbor Kanu (“The AFRC Case”) (Judgement) SCSL-04-16-T (20 July 2007) [67].

  8. 8.

    Ibid [71].

  9. 9.

    Ibid [72].

  10. 10.

    Prosecutor v. Sam Hinga Norma, Moinina Fofana and Allieu Kondewa (“The CDF Case”) (Indictment) SCSL-04-14-T (4 February 2004) [4].

  11. 11.

    CDF Trial Judgement (n 3 above) [345, 370].

  12. 12.

    W. Schabas, Special Court for Sierra Leone Rejects Joint Criminal Enterprise. The Trial of Charles Taylor, June 2007 http://charlestaylortrial.wordpress.com/expert-commentary/professor-william-schabas-on-afrc-decision Accessed 13 April 2013.

  13. 13.

    CDF Trial Judgement (n 3 above) [966].

  14. 14.

    Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Document Containing the Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06-356 (28 August 2006) [20].

  15. 15.

    Weigend 2008, p. 476.

  16. 16.

    Lubanga Confirmation of Charges (n 5 above) [330].

  17. 17.

    Sacouto and Cleary 2007, p. 837.

  18. 18.

    Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Trial Judgement) ICC-01/04-01/06-2842 (14 March 2012) [994].

  19. 19.

    Ibid [1000–1001].

  20. 20.

    Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Separate Opinion of Judge Fulford) ICC-01/04-01/06-2842 (14 March 2012) [Hereafter ‘Opinion of Judge Fulford’] [13].

  21. 21.

    Ibid [17].

  22. 22.

    Lubanga Confirmation of Charges (n 5 above) [342].

  23. 23.

    Opinion of Judge Fulford (n 20 above) [15].

  24. 24.

    Engvall 2007, p. 241; Manacorda and Meloni 2011, p. 159.

  25. 25.

    Prosecutor v. Alex Tamba Brima, Brima Bazzy Kamara and Santigie Borbor Kanu (“The AFRC Case”) (Sentencing Hearing Transcript) SCSL-04-16-T (16 July 2007) 80.

  26. 26.

    Ibid 79.

  27. 27.

    AFRC Trial Judgement (n 7 above) [732].

  28. 28.

    Lubanga Confirmation of Charges Decision (n 5 above) [312–314].

  29. 29.

    Ibid [315–316].

  30. 30.

    Berliner and Barbieri 1984, pp. 125–137.

  31. 31.

    Ellison 2001, p. 10.

  32. 32.

    No Peace Without Justice and UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, ‘International Criminal Justice and Children' (September 2002) 87.

  33. 33.

    ECOSOC (47th plenary meeting) ‘UN Guidelines on Justice for Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime’ Resolution 2004/27 (New York, 21 July 2004) 21(b).

  34. 34.

    G. Bitti, The evolving role of NGOs in international criminal justice. International Seminar organized by the Forum for International Criminal Justice and Conflict, Oslo 2 October 2006 http://www.fichl.org/uploads/media/gb.pdf Accessed 13 April 2013.

  35. 35.

    Human Rights Watch, Syria: ‘Shoot to Kill’ Commanders Named. London, 15 December 2011; J. Becker, Children as Weapons of War’. Human Rights Watch World Report 2004, 22 January 2004; Amnesty International, Democratic Republic of Congo: Children at War. AFR 62/034/2003. 8 September 2003.

  36. 36.

    Human Rights Watch, The Curse of Gold: Democratic Republic of Congo. New York, 2005; International Crisis Group, Africa Report, Congo Crisis: Military Intervention in Ituri. 13 June 2003. www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/africa/central-africa/dr-congo/Congo%20Crisis%20Military%20Intervention%20in%20Ituri.pdf. Accessed 13 April 2013.

  37. 37.

    Human Rights Watch, Covered in Blood: Ethnically Targeted Violence in Northern DRC. Human Rights Watch, New York 2003, and Human Rights Watch 2005, The Curse of Gold: Democratic Republic of Congo. New York, 2005.

  38. 38.

    Lubanga Confirmation of Charges (n 5 above), footnotes 208, 209, 262, 294, 303, 307, 309, 323 (citing entire paragraph), 329, 330, 335, 342, 384, 466, 505.

  39. 39.

    Ibid footnote 303: In referring to a UPC attack on Mongbwalu, the Chamber noted that the attack was ‘not mentioned in the various United Nations reports, but described with some precision in the Human Rights Report The Curse of Gold’.

  40. 40.

    Human Rights First, The Role of Human Rights NGOs in Relation to ICC Investigation. September 2004.

  41. 41.

    Lubanga Trial Judgement (n 18 above) [130] citing: J. Bravin, For Global Court, Ugandan Rebels Prove Tough Test. The Wall Street Journal, New York, 8 June 2006. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114971481626174102.html Accessed 13 April 2013.

  42. 42.

    Réseau Citoyens-Citizens Network, 2012, République démocratique du Congo. http://www.rcn-ong.be/-Republique-democratique-du-Congo Accessed 13 April 2013.

  43. 43.

    International Centre for Transitional Justice, 2013, Democratic Republic of Congo http://ictj.org/our-work/regions-and-countries/democratic-republic-congo. Accessed 13 April 2013.

  44. 44.

    Avocats Sans Frontières, 2013, ASF in the Democratic Republic of Congo http://www.asf.be/fr/node/131. Accessed 13 April 2013.

  45. 45.

    Front Line Defenders, 2010, DRC: Joint statement by international and congolese NGOs on urgent need to protect human rights defendersat risk (Goma, 8 September 2010). http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/13254. Accessed 13 April 2013.

  46. 46.

    ‘Congolese warlord Bosco Ntaganda in custody at International Criminal Court’, The Guardian, London, 22 March 2013.

  47. 47.

    P. Labuda, The Democratic Republic of Congo’s Failure to Address Impunity for International Crimes: A View from Inside the Legislative Process 2010–2011. The Lubanga Trial, 8 November 2011. http://www.lubangatrial.org/2011/11/08/the-democratic-republic-of-congo%E2%80%99s-failure-to-address-impunity-for-international-crimes-a-view-from-inside-the-legislative-process-2010-2011/ Accessed 13 April 2013.

  48. 48.

    Goldstone and Fritz 2000, p. 659.

  49. 49.

    See: Akhavan 2008, pp. 737–816; Mendes 2011, pp. 143–151.

  50. 50.

    Wippman 1999, p. 474.

  51. 51.

    Park 2010, p. 336.

  52. 52.

    Drumbl 2003, p. 271.

  53. 53.

    See: Norrie 2001, p. 210; Brody 1984, p. 10; Clarkson 2005, p. 272; Marsh and Keating 2006, p. 637.

  54. 54.

    R. Marquand, Lubanga trial: Is an army of child soldiers a war crime? Christian Science Monitor, Boston, 8 October 2009. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2009/1008/lubanga-trial-is-an-army-of-child-soldiers-a-war-crime Accessed 14 April 2013.

  55. 55.

    L. Charbonneau, UN gets reports of child soldiers with Syria rebels. Reuters (26 March 2012). McBride J (2013) Syria, Child Soldiers and the growing possibility of an ICC referral. Rights NI. http://rightsni.org/2013/03/syria-child-soldiers-and-the-growing-possibility-of-an-icc-referral/ Accessed 14 April 2013.

  56. 56.

    ICC Press Release ‘Prosecutor presents evidence that could lead to the first ICC trial’ (9 November 2006).

  57. 57.

    Coalition for the ICC, Press Release, One Year Later, Lubanga Trial's Impact Is Felt on the Ground. 12 February 2010.

  58. 58.

    Human Rights Watch, Selling Justice Short. New York, 2009, p. 125.

  59. 59.

    M. Corder, Lawyers wrap up Int'l Court's first trial. The Guardian, Associated Press, The Hague, 25 August 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9815173 Accessed 14 April 2013.

  60. 60.

    Burke-White 2005, p. 587.

  61. 61.

    Lubanga (Transcript) T-188 (9 June 2009) page 78, lines 24–25.

  62. 62.

    M McClelland, I Can Find an Indicted Warlord. So Why Isn't He in The Hague? Mother Jones, San Francisco, September/October 2011. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/bosco-ntaganda-congo-warlord. Accessed 13 April 2013.

References

  • Akhavan P (2008) Justice in The Hague, Peace in the former Yugoslavia? A commentary on the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal. Hum Rights Q 20:737

    Google Scholar 

  • Berliner L, Barbieri MK (1984) The testimony of the child victim of sexual assault. J Soc Issues 40:125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody RS (1984) Crime, science, and morals. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2007) The proper limits of individual responsibility under the doctrine of joint criminal enterprise. J Int Crim Justice 5:110

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson CMV (2005) Understanding criminal law. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Drumbl M (2003) Towards a criminology of international crime. Ohio State J Dispute Resolut 19:263

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison L (2001) The adversarial Process and the vulnerable witness. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Engvall L (2007) The future of extended joint criminal enterprise—will the ICTY’s innovation meet the standards of the ICC? Nord J Int Law 76:241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone RJ, Fritz N (2000) “In the Interests of Justice” and independent referral: the ICC Prosecutor’s unprecedented powers. Leiden J Int Law 13:655

    Google Scholar 

  • Manacorda S, Meloni C (2011) Indirect perpetration versus joint criminal enterprise: concurring approaches in the practice of international criminal law? J Int Crim Justice 9:159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh I, Keating M (2006) Sociology: making sense of society. Pearson Education, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendes E (2011) Peace and justice at the International Criminal Court: a court of last resort. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Norrie A (2001) Crime, reason and history: a critical introduction to criminal Law. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Park ASJ (2010) Child soldiers and distributive justice: addressing the limits of law? Crime Law Soc Change 53:329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacouto S, Cleary K (2007) The gravity threshold of the International Criminal Court. Am Univ Int Law Rev 23:807

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigend T (2008) Intent, mistake of law, and co-perpetration in the Lubanga Decision on confirmation of charges. J Int Crim Justice 6:471

    Google Scholar 

  • Wippman D (1999) Atrocities, deterrence, and the limits of international justice. Fordham Int Law J 23:473

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Westermarkt 35, 1016 DJ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Julie McBride

Authors
  1. Julie McBride
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie McBride .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 T. M. C. Asser press, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McBride, J. (2014). Conclusions. In: The War Crime of Child Soldier Recruitment. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-921-4_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation