Intersections of Victimhood and Responsibility in the International Criminal Law Assessment of Child Soldiers

Reintegration and Alternative Accountability

Abstract

Aim: This paper examines the normative tension in the international criminal-law assessment of child soldiers, focusing on how the dimensions of victimhood and responsibility become durably intertwined. Its central question is how international criminal law interprets and handles situations in which child soldiers’ victim status overlaps with a potential perpetrator role, and what limits and alternative legal responses emerge in the field of accountability as a consequence. The aim is not to establish a single “correct” accountability model, but to show why and how international law applies differentiated, fragmented solutions that treat the enhanced protection of children as a primary consideration. From the perspective of law enforcement studies, the paper briefly interprets the preventive and reintegration-related implications of these solutions as well (especially with regard to community trust and the management of public-security risks).

Methodology: The analysis is based on normative-dogmatic examination and a synthesis of the literature. The source base relies on international legal sources and institutional documents, as well as the practice of the International Criminal Court (with particular attention to the normative prohibitions on the recruitment/use of children and age-based jurisdictional arrangements), supplemented by interdisciplinary and empirical literature to interpret the links between structural coercion and reintegration. Within this framework, the paper presents the normative foundations of children’s special protection in connection with armed conflict and the legal meaning of participation; interprets the unlawful character of recruitment and use and children’s structural vulnerability; analyses the institutional framework of accountability, including age-related limits within international criminal justice and alternative measures emphasising reintegration; and, through the relationship between norms and practice, assesses how these frameworks channel the tension between victimhood and responsibility into manageable bounds. The law enforcement studies linkage appears in an indicative manner: the possible implications of the normative conclusions are interpreted at the intersection of public security, prevention, risk management and reintegration, without an independent empirical law enforcement study. The paper approaches the legal assessment of child soldiers specifically from the perspective of international criminal law and the related normative frameworks; it does not aim at a comprehensive historical, regional or quantitative empirical treatment of the phenomenon, and its law enforcement-related discussion remains at the level of implications.

Findings: The paper argues that the international criminal-law assessment of child soldiers carries a persistent normative tension: the dimensions of victimhood and responsibility do not exclude each other but rather limit and overlap, making the classical victim–perpetrator dichotomy inadequate in practice. As a consequence, international criminal justice does not apply a single accountability model; instead, it operates with age-based jurisdictional limits and alternative, reintegration-oriented responses, while the fragmented nature of normative frameworks may produce differing institutional patterns of evaluation. From a law enforcement studies perspective, reintegration-related solutions can also be interpreted in terms of community prevention, risk management and the stabilisation of public security.

Value: The value of the paper lies in organising the international criminal-law problem connected to child soldiers within an integrated framework: it presents, in an interlinked manner, the principle of special protection, the dilemma of victim–perpetrator overlap, and the limits and alternatives of accountability. As an applied lesson, this synthesis supports the interpretation that legal and institutional responses along the protection–rehabilitation–reintegration axis are relevant not only in doctrinal terms but also for prevention and the management of public-security risks.