Guest Blogger: Myriam Denov

It's IntLawGrrls' great pleasure to welcome as a guest blogger Dr. Myriam Denov (right).

An Associate Professor of Social Work at McGill University in Montreal, she received her doctorate in Criminology from the University of Cambridge.

At McGill Myriam researches and teaches on children and youth at risk, with an emphasis on war and political violence, children and armed conflict, and gender-based violence. She has worked with vulnerable populations internationally including former child soldiers, victims of sexual violence, and people living with HIV/AIDS. Her current research explores the militarization and reintegration experiences of former child soldiers in Sierra Leone and Sri Lanka. Myriam has presented expert evidence on child soldiers and has served as an advisor to government and NGOs on children and armed conflict, and on girls in fighting forces. She is currently writing a book on child soldiers that will be published by Cambridge University Press.

Myriam's guest post below, which draws from her experience in Sierra Leone to focus on girl soldiers, an issue on which another IntLawGrrls guest, Dr. Noëlle Quénivet, also has posted.

Myriam's transnational foremother was herself a girl soldier:

I would like to dedicate this guest post to Mamusu, who I was privileged to meet during my time in Sierra Leone. Mamusu was a former girl soldier who was abducted at the age of 9 by the rebel Revolutionary UnitedFront, forced to fight in battle, and to become the “wife” of a rebel commander. She remained with the rebel group for more than five years and bore two children, as a result of sexual violence. In the aftermath of the war, impoverished and with few systems of support, Mamusu courageously and inspirationally attempted to carve out a life and livelihood for her and her two young children. Mamusu died at the age of 17.

Mamusu joins other IntLawGrrls transnational foremothers in the list below the "visiting from..." map at right.

Heartfelt welcome!

The Rights of Babes

Noëlle Quénivet's excellent post yesterday on the gaps in international law protecting child soldiers leads me to a related and even more fundamental question, that of the right of children not to be victims of armed conflict. Yesterday, the United Nations reported that 257 Palestinian children have been killed in Gaza and 1,080 wounded since December 27, just over 10 days ago. (And see prior post.) I'm no expert on the conflict, nor on international humanitarian law, but the violation of international human rights law seems quite clear. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Israel has signed and ratified, states in Article 6:

1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.
2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

The indiscriminate bombing of crowded civilian areas -- especially where, as in Gaza, children constitute over half of the population -- seems contrary to these requirements. While one could quibble about whether Palestinian children are "under the jurisdiction" of Israel, Article 2 ensures that the CRC applies without regard to national origin of the child, and that a child should not be punished on the basis of the status, activities, or beliefs of their parents. Moreover, it's tough to find a gap between morality and law in this situation -- killing children, whether intentionally or from failure to take adequate precautions, is simply wrong, no matter their nationality or their parents' actions.

Guest Blogger: Noëlle Quénivet

It's IntLawGrrls' great pleasure today to welcome Dr. Noëlle Quénivet (right) as a guest blogger.
Noëlle is a Senior Lecturer at the Bristol Law School of the University of the West of England in Bristol, where she teaches Public International Law, International Humanitarian Law, and International Criminal Law.
She earned her B.A. in international relations from the University of Strasbourg - Graz, her LL.M in human rights law from the University of Nottingham, and her Ph.D. from the University of Essex.
Author of the book Sexual Offenses in Armed Conflict and International Law (Transnational Publishers 2005) (reviewed here), Noëlle continues to concentrate her scholarly research on issues related to women and armed conflict. Her guest post below reflects that expertise. It discusses the legal conundrum presented by girl child soldiers, an issues she explored in her article entitled Girl Soldiers and Participation in Hostilities, 16 African Journal of International & Comparative Law 219 (2008).

Heartfelt welcome!

Girl child soldiers

(My thanks to IntLawGrrls for this opportunity to contribute this guest post.)

Recently, organisations working with former child soldiers have observed the growing number of girls involved in armed conflicts.

While girls' fate as sexual slaves is well documented, their participation in hostilities is less acknowledged. Girls, like boys, spy, loot, and kill. But they also cook, clean, and run camps. International humanitarian law, human rights law and international criminal law clearly proscribe “using [children] to participate actively in hostilities.” Three key issues are raised in this context:

► the definition of a child;

►the interpretation of the expression “participation in hostilities”; and

►the use of the word “actively/direct” to qualify the type of participation.

While the first issue is rather generic, since it aims at ascertaining who is a child, the second and the third appear gender-biased. Indeed, the expression “direct participation in hostilities” assumes that child soldiers are boys engaged in combat duties. This interpretation leaves open the possibility that the activities carried out by girls do not fall within the purview of this prohibition. As a result one may even question whether the recruiters of girls are breaching legal norms by “using” them.

It is this gap that triggered my interest in the subject. I have recently published an article, Girl Soldiers and Participation in Hostilities, 16 African Journal of International & Comparative Law 219 (2008). There I argue that the actual participation of boys in armed conflict does concur strictly with the legal definition of direct/active participation. But this does not always hold true for girls, since they are involved in a plethora of activities that are related to military operations but whose purpose is not necessarily “to cause harm to the personnel or equipment of the enemy forces.” However, I contend that a broad interpretation of the word “direct” allows for the inclusion of most girls’ activities within the prohibitive provisions. Moreover, I argue that as girls are more likely to make an indirect contribution towards the hostilities, it is important that indirect participation be also prohibited. Unfortunately, only an overtly broad interpretation of the text can lead to such a conclusion. As a result, the case of girl soldiers reveals how inopportune and counterproductive the legal distinction between direct and indirect participation in hostilities is.

Strictly speaking, one must examine on a case-by-case basis what was the focus of girls’ activities in order to qualify their participation in the conflict. This involves interviewing a substantial number of girls, obtaining factual evidence of their activities and assessing the time spent on each task. Further, an objective test may fail to take into consideration the feelings of the girls who perhaps viewed the situation from a different angle.

Regrettably, I come to the conclusion that it is unlikely that those accused of using children to participate in hostilities can be successfully prosecuted for obliging girls to take part in the conflict unless these girls were almost exclusively “used” for activities closely related to military operations.

This is an area of the law that urgently needs to be addressed.

(credit for above left photo of girl soldier in Cambodia; credit for above right photo of infant and mother who gave birth while a girl soldier in Democratic Republic of Congo)